TB9-16530

TB9-16530

The appeals are dismissed because the Appellants failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence to establish a well‑founded fear or a real risk under s.97; multiple adverse credibility findings (inconsistent accounts, unexplained delay, prior statement to CBSA, lack of documentary corroboration) and the fact they are adult males over majority age who would not reasonably remain under paternal control mean state protection would be reasonably forthcoming, so the RPD decision is confirmed.

Citation
TB9-16530
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Burden of Proof, Article 1 F (serious Non Political Crime), Delay in Claiming, Joint Claim Credibility Impact
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment State Protection Burden of Proof Article 1 F (serious Non Political Crime) Delay in Claiming +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Final Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants' evidence was credible
  2. 2 Whether state protection would be reasonably forthcoming in Saudi Arabia
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants rebutted the presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are dismissed because the Appellants failed to provide credible, corroborated evidence to establish a well‑founded fear or a real risk under s.97; multiple adverse credibility findings (inconsistent accounts, unexplained delay, prior statement to CBSA, lack of documentary corroboration) and the fact they are adult males over majority age who would not reasonably remain under paternal control mean state protection would be reasonably forthcoming, so the RPD decision is confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed and the Refugee Protection Division decision is confirmed