MB9-01722

MB9-01722

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings: material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the appellant's BOC, testimony and documentary record — particularly regarding the identities of persecutors, circumstances that enabled his escape, timing of events and the father's death — together with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB9-01722
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review) / Final Decision / Reasons and Decision Dated August 28, 2019
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed; appellant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Presumption of Truthfulness, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Evidentiary Weight of Documents, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Presumption of Truthfulness Delay in Claiming Asylum Evidentiary Weight of Documents Standard of Review

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister of Immigration (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review) / Final Decision / Reasons and Decision Dated August 28, 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the BOC and testimony rebut the presumption of truthfulness
  3. 3 Whether travel to the United States and delay in claiming refuge undermine subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's credibility findings: material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the appellant's BOC, testimony and documentary record — particularly regarding the identities of persecutors, circumstances that enabled his escape, timing of events and the father's death — together with unexplained repeated travel to the United States and delay in seeking protection, rebut the presumption of truthfulness and defeat both a Convention refugee claim under s.96 IRPA and a need for protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed; appellant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA the RAD confirms the RPD determination and dismisses the appeal.