MB9-09847

MB9-09847

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because unexplained contradictions and omissions on central elements of the claim (post‑attack threats, threats to family, inconsistent dates of political involvement) undermined the appellant's account; there was no new evidence warranting an oral hearing; accordingly the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
MB9-09847
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Procedural Fairness, Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Delay in Seeking Protection, Adverse Credibility Finding
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Credibility Procedural Fairness Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Status Delay in Seeking Protection Adverse Credibility Finding

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / RAD Decision on Appeal Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether contradictions between the appellant's written account and oral testimony justified adverse credibility inferences
  3. 3 Whether omissions regarding threats to family and chronological errors undermined the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because unexplained contradictions and omissions on central elements of the claim (post‑attack threats, threats to family, inconsistent dates of political involvement) undermined the appellant's account; there was no new evidence warranting an oral hearing; accordingly the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection