MC1-09652

MC1-09652

Material and unexplained contradictions between the appellants' written narrative and oral testimony (number and amount of extortions, chronology of events, complaint details and delay leaving) sufficiently undermined credibility such that the appellants failed to prove the facts on a balance of probabilities; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MC1-09652
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Minor Appellants: XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Procedural Fairness, Differentiated Credibility Analysis, Delay in Departure, Risk of Persecution/torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Differentiated Credibility Analysis Delay in Departure +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Minor Appellants

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contradictions between written narrative and oral testimony undermine credibility
  2. 2 Whether RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to give opportunity to rebut evidence used to propose IFAs
  3. 3 Whether differentiated credibility analysis under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA was required and applied

Ratio Decidendi

Material and unexplained contradictions between the appellants' written narrative and oral testimony (number and amount of extortions, chronology of events, complaint details and delay leaving) sufficiently undermined credibility such that the appellants failed to prove the facts on a balance of probabilities; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.