MB9-08734

MB9-08734

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the RPD reasonably relied on the appellant's contradictory and vague testimony, unexplained omissions in the Basis of Claim Form, acknowledged documentary errors (death and burial certificates), and the absence of a demonstrated subjective fear as a woman or evidence that the minor daughter faces persecution in her country of citizenship; these findings justified rejection of both refugee protection claims.

Citation
MB9-08734
Parties
Appellant and Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX; Affected Minor: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Under Review) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Risk to Life, Protection Claim, Standard of Review, Basis of Claim Form Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Risk to Life Protection Claim Standard of Review Basis of Claim Form Omissions

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX

Appellant and Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX

Affected Minor

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Protection Division Decision Under Review) / Decision on Appeal (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellant not credible
  2. 2 Whether the minor daughter has a protected fear in her country of citizenship (United States)
  3. 3 Whether omissions and contradictions in testimony and documents justify rejection of refugee claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the RPD reasonably relied on the appellant's contradictory and vague testimony, unexplained omissions in the Basis of Claim Form, acknowledged documentary errors (death and burial certificates), and the absence of a demonstrated subjective fear as a woman or evidence that the minor daughter faces persecution in her country of citizenship; these findings justified rejection of both refugee protection claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Confirm RPD determination that the appellant and her minor daughter are not Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of IRPA and are not persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of IRPA