TB8-03284

TB8-03284

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on a balance of probabilities, material inconsistencies and implausibilities in the appellants' testimony (inability to identify persecutors inconsistent with the husband's political activity, omission and late disclosure of a US trip despite claimed lack of means, return to the alleged place of risk, contradictions with objective evidence about FGM and family status, and an unauthentic police extract) rendered the appellants not credible and they therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a need for protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-03284
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Person(s) Who Is(are) the Subject of the Appeal: Diana Gallego; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision (rpd Decision Dated November 28, 2017) Heard by Rad; Decision Issued December 14, 2018
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Plausibility Findings, Corroborative Evidence, Female Genital Mutilation (fgm), Re‑availment and Delay, Document Authenticity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Plausibility Findings Corroborative Evidence Female Genital Mutilation (fgm) Re‑availment and Delay +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Child

Diana Gallego

Counsel for the Person(s) Who Is(are) the Subject of the Appeal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision (rpd Decision Dated November 28, 2017) Heard by Rad; Decision Issued December 14, 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants were credible
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred in making a plausibility finding without documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether corroborative documents (letters, photos, police report) have probative value

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on a balance of probabilities, material inconsistencies and implausibilities in the appellants' testimony (inability to identify persecutors inconsistent with the husband's political activity, omission and late disclosure of a US trip despite claimed lack of means, return to the alleged place of risk, contradictions with objective evidence about FGM and family status, and an unauthentic police extract) rendered the appellants not credible and they therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a need for protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision of November 28, 2017 confirmed (decision dated December 14, 2018).