MC0-02409

MC0-02409

The RAD found no error in the RPD's credibility findings: the appellants' case contained material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities (including omissions on the IMM 5669, inconsistent explanations about membership cards and the timing of political activity) and lacked corroboration; on that basis the appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA, so the RPD decision is confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
MC0-02409
Parties
Appellant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection, Political Opinion/persecution, Evidence/corroboration, Membership Documentation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection Political Opinion/persecution Evidence/corroboration Membership Documentation

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (male)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether omissions, contradictions and implausibilities justified rejection of the refugee claim
  3. 3 Whether appellants established Convention refugee status or need for protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found no error in the RPD's credibility findings: the appellants' case contained material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities (including omissions on the IMM 5669, inconsistent explanations about membership cards and the timing of political activity) and lacked corroboration; on that basis the appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA, so the RPD decision is confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • The RAD confirms the RPD determination that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • The appeal is dismissed