TB8-09388

TB8-09388

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, after independent review, concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified: the photographs and the Land Acquisition Notice were unreliable and insufficiently corroborative, the appellant's explanations were contradictory and convoluted, and on the balance of probabilities he is not a person of interest or at risk of persecution.

Citation
TB8-09388
Parties
Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Documentary Corroboration, Photographic Evidence, Standard of Review, Oral Hearing Request, Land Expropriation, Persecution, Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Documentary Corroboration Photographic Evidence Standard of Review Oral Hearing Request +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the photographic evidence reliably corroborates the claim
  3. 3 Whether the Land Acquisition Notice is reliable and central to the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, after independent review, concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified: the photographs and the Land Acquisition Notice were unreliable and insufficiently corroborative, the appellant's explanations were contradictory and convoluted, and on the balance of probabilities he is not a person of interest or at risk of persecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed and decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Request for oral hearing under subsection 110(6) IRPA denied