MB9-09284

MB9-09284

The appeal is dismissed because on a balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to establish that the Principal Appellant led the legal challenge or that they were targeted for that role; material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration justified the RPD's adverse credibility findings, and no new evidence justified an oral hearing or altered the prospective risk assessment.

Citation
MB9-09284
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants: XXXX XXXX and family; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)
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, Convention Refugee Determination, Internal Flight Alternative, IRPA Section 97, Oral Hearing/new Evidence (s110), Blood Feud/jirga
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Evidence and Credibility Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Internal Flight Alternative IRPA Section 97 +2 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX and family

Associate Appellants

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Appellant was credible about leading the legal challenge
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants established they were subjected to or face threats on a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether a prospective risk exists from blood feud or Jirga-mediated release

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because on a balance of probabilities the Appellants failed to establish that the Principal Appellant led the legal challenge or that they were targeted for that role; material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration justified the RPD's adverse credibility findings, and no new evidence justified an oral hearing or altered the prospective risk assessment.

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 confirmed
  • Request for oral hearing under s110(6) dismissed for lack of new evidence