MB7-04688

MB7-04688

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the principal appellant's testimony was contradictory, indirect and inconsistent with his written Basis of Claim and submitted documents (notably inconsistent dates and a statement dated 2012 contradicting an alleged 2015 attack), undermining credibility; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB7-04688
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Appeal Decision (confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refusal of Refugee Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refusal of Refugee Protection Standard of Review

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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (minor)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Appeal Decision (confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant is credible
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred by overemphasizing dates and inconsistencies
  3. 3 Whether the appellants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96-97

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD decision because the principal appellant's testimony was contradictory, indirect and inconsistent with his written Basis of Claim and submitted documents (notably inconsistent dates and a statement dated 2012 contradicting an alleged 2015 attack), undermining credibility; therefore the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Impugned RPD decision of April 18, 2017 confirmed