MB9-18626

MB9-18626

After an independent review the RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on central inconsistencies (police raid location and circumstances), significant omissions (threatening call from a Member of Parliament), an unexplained two-year delay in filing the refugee claim, and documentary irregularities (alternate name spellings, suspect dates, differing signatures). No independent credible documentary evidence existed to rebut the adverse credibility finding; therefore the appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities or a serious possibility, that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-18626
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Adjudicative Body: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refugee Appeal Division (Panel: John Helis)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (rad Decision Dated September 10, 2020)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 22, 2019 confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Inter Caste Marriage, Persecution, Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection, Documentary Evidence Authenticity, Section 97(1) Danger Assessment, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Inter Caste Marriage Persecution Delay in Claiming Refugee Protection Documentary Evidence Authenticity +2 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refugee Appeal Division (Panel: John Helis)

Adjudicative Body

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Appeal (rad Decision Dated September 10, 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is credible
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is a Convention refugee under IRPA s.111(1)(b)/(c)
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is a person in need of protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a) / s.97(1)

Ratio Decidendi

After an independent review the RAD affirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on central inconsistencies (police raid location and circumstances), significant omissions (threatening call from a Member of Parliament), an unexplained two-year delay in filing the refugee claim, and documentary irregularities (alternate name spellings, suspect dates, differing signatures). No independent credible documentary evidence existed to rebut the adverse credibility finding; therefore the appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities or a serious possibility, that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 22, 2019 confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated July 22, 2019 is confirmed