TB6-05914

TB6-05914

The RAD found on the balance of probabilities that the male appellant is not Roma due to unexplained irregularities in primary Ukrainian documents, repetitive and vague testimony and weak corroboration; because the claim depended on alleged Roma ethnicity it failed as a Convention refugee claim, and the female appellant's claim also failed given the male appellant is not Roma and the female holds Czech permanent resident status with no evidence of persecution there.

Citation
TB6-05914
Parties
Appellant (principal): XXXX XXXX; Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal RAD Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Roma Ethnicity, Document Authenticity, Standard of Review, State Protection/alternate Country of Asylum
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Roma Ethnicity Document Authenticity Standard of Review State Protection/alternate Country of Asylum

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Appellant (spouse)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal RAD Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the male appellant is of Roma ethnicity
  2. 2 Whether documentary evidence from Ukraine is authentic and sufficient
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings and whether RAD should defer or substitute

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found on the balance of probabilities that the male appellant is not Roma due to unexplained irregularities in primary Ukrainian documents, repetitive and vague testimony and weak corroboration; because the claim depended on alleged Roma ethnicity it failed as a Convention refugee claim, and the female appellant's claim also failed given the male appellant is not Roma and the female holds Czech permanent resident status with no evidence of persecution there.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision upheld under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division upheld