MB8-25924

MB8-25924

The appellant's claim was rejected because the RPD's credibility findings—based on multiple unjustified contradictions, omissions, failure to obtain or explain documentary corroboration, and inconsistent testimony about key facts—were reasonable; RAD conducted an independent review and found no error in the RPD's credibility assessment, so the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB8-25924
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons and Decision on Credibility Appeal (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof (balance of Probabilities), Documentary Corroboration, Standard of Review, Forward‑looking Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Credibility Assessment Burden of Proof (balance of Probabilities) Documentary Corroboration Standard of Review +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Reasons and Decision on Credibility Appeal (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established ownership of land in Haiti on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence or corroboration was available or reasonably obtainable

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claim was rejected because the RPD's credibility findings—based on multiple unjustified contradictions, omissions, failure to obtain or explain documentary corroboration, and inconsistent testimony about key facts—were reasonable; RAD conducted an independent review and found no error in the RPD's credibility assessment, so the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; RPD determination confirmed