MB7-05377

MB7-05377

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by multiple independent indicators (vague and contradictory testimony about employment, licence inconsistent with alleged bus driving, implausibility of driving for years without required licence or showing it to authorities, failure to report/extortion not raised with employer, inconsistent documentary exhibits). Those findings justified rejecting the refugee claim under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
MB7-05377
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the appellants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by multiple independent indicators (vague and contradictory testimony about employment, licence inconsistent with alleged bus driving, implausibility of driving for years without required licence or showing it to authorities, failure to report/extortion not raised with employer, inconsistent documentary exhibits). Those findings justified rejecting the refugee claim under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Confirm RPD determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  • Appeal dismissed