MB4-02795

MB4-02795

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the claimant's credibility was undermined by cumulative inconsistencies and omissions between his BOC, testimony and documentary evidence, his conduct (multiple returns to Sri Lanka and travel with a public cricket team) was inconsistent with fearing for his life, and he failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he would personally face a danger of torture or persecution on return; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB4-02795
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Decision Maker: Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD (confirmation/dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)), Standard of Review/appellate Role, Danger of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)) Standard of Review/appellate Role Danger of Torture

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Refugee Protection Division

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / RAD Decision on Appeal From RPD (confirmation/dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified and sufficient to dismiss the claim
  3. 3 Whether the RAD must independently reassess the RPD decision and what deference is due to RPD credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the claimant's credibility was undermined by cumulative inconsistencies and omissions between his BOC, testimony and documentary evidence, his conduct (multiple returns to Sri Lanka and travel with a public cricket team) was inconsistent with fearing for his life, and he failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he would personally face a danger of torture or persecution on return; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Orders

  • The decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated June 2, 2014 is confirmed
  • Appeal dismissed