MB5-03850

MB5-03850

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the claimant omitted central facts from the BOC, had material inconsistencies between written and oral statements about his work, and his conduct (continuing to live and study in the alleged danger area) undermined his claim of risk; those findings were not shown to be wrong in law, fact or mixed fact and law and therefore did not satisfy ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Citation
MB5-03850
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Disposition on Paper (no New Evidence, No Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review (correctness), Refugee Protection Claim, Convention Refugee, Omissions in Basis of Claim (boc)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Standard of Review (correctness) Refugee Protection Claim Convention Refugee Omissions in Basis of Claim (boc)

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Disposition on Paper (no New Evidence, No Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the RPD err in its credibility assessment and impose an excessive burden on the claimant?
  2. 2 Do omissions in the BOC undermine the claimant's credibility sufficiently to deny refugee protection?
  3. 3 Can the RAD substitute its own decision without a re‑hearing of oral testimony?

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the claimant omitted central facts from the BOC, had material inconsistencies between written and oral statements about his work, and his conduct (continuing to live and study in the alleged danger area) undermined his claim of risk; those findings were not shown to be wrong in law, fact or mixed fact and law and therefore did not satisfy ss.96‑97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed (claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection)