MB8-19391

MB8-19391

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the identified contradictions and omissions were significant and central to the claim — notably the appellant's inability to describe his alleged senior party role or party policies and documentary/testimonial inconsistencies — and because the appellant's return to Haiti after a stay abroad was inconsistent with an asserted fear for his life; therefore the appellant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB8-19391
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Burden of Proof, Country Condition Context
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Convention Refugee Status Burden of Proof Country Condition Context

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established Convention refugee or person in need of protection status
  3. 3 Application of the Maldonado presumption of credibility for sworn testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the identified contradictions and omissions were significant and central to the claim — notably the appellant's inability to describe his alleged senior party role or party policies and documentary/testimonial inconsistencies — and because the appellant's return to Haiti after a stay abroad was inconsistent with an asserted fear for his life; therefore the appellant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD decision of August 16, 2018 is confirmed and the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.