MB6-03338

MB6-03338

The RAD confirmed the RPD because credibility was the determinative issue and the RPD reasonably found the appellant evasive, contradictory and to have omitted material information from his Basis of Claim; the appellant's explanations for delay were insufficient; on the evidence the proposed internal flight alternatives (Mumbai or Chandigarh) would be safe and relocation would not be objectively unreasonable; therefore the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB6-03338
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Delay in Filing Claim, State Protection and State Acquiescence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Delay in Filing Claim +2 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Under IRPA / Final Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility finding
  3. 3 Whether the omission in the Basis of Claim form undermines credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because credibility was the determinative issue and the RPD reasonably found the appellant evasive, contradictory and to have omitted material information from his Basis of Claim; the appellant's explanations for delay were insufficient; on the evidence the proposed internal flight alternatives (Mumbai or Chandigarh) would be safe and relocation would not be objectively unreasonable; therefore the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed