MC0-06706

MC0-06706

The RPD reasonably concluded the appellants' claim lacked credibility because of pervasive inconsistencies and indications of fraudulent or unauthenticated documentary evidence; therefore the appellants failed on the balance of probabilities to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MC0-06706
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Document Authenticity, Burden of Proof, Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Evidentiary Law Credibility Assessment Document Authenticity Burden of Proof Convention Refugee Determination Protection Claim

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (son)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant (daughter)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' evidence is credible
  2. 2 Whether documentary evidence (affidavit, medical reports, police and court documents, photographs) is authentic and probative
  3. 3 Whether appellants meet the definition of Convention refugee or are persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD reasonably concluded the appellants' claim lacked credibility because of pervasive inconsistencies and indications of fraudulent or unauthenticated documentary evidence; therefore the appellants failed on the balance of probabilities to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division determination that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed