TB9-21887

TB9-21887

The RPD was correct to find that material omissions and inconsistencies—most critically the non‑production of the alleged threatening email, the undated/unsigned handwritten note, contradictions about the timing of the arson and police reporting, and inconsistent address history—undermined the appellants' credibility on a balance of probabilities; therefore the appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed under the correctness standard.

Citation
TB9-21887
Parties
Principal Appellant (designated Representative): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution, Standard of Review, Evidentiary Corroboration, Country‑specific Violence (fulani Herdsmen)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution Standard of Review Evidentiary Corroboration Country‑specific Violence (fulani Herdsmen)

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant (designated Representative)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Associate Appellant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established a well‑founded fear of persecution by Fulani herdsmen
  2. 2 Whether material omissions and inconsistencies undermine credibility on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether RPD erred in weighing documentary and corroborative evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD was correct to find that material omissions and inconsistencies—most critically the non‑production of the alleged threatening email, the undated/unsigned handwritten note, contradictions about the timing of the arson and police reporting, and inconsistent address history—undermined the appellants' credibility on a balance of probabilities; therefore the appellants failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed under the correctness standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act