MB9-05698

MB9-05698

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD because material contradictions, significant omissions, lack of corroboration regarding investigative steps, and implausible conduct (including failure to seek asylum in the US despite opportunity) undermined the principal appellant's credibility and the claim failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk to the US-national child under IRPA ss.96–97.

Citation
MB9-05698
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Reasons and Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Chairperson's Guideline 4, Benefit of the Doubt, Third Country Asylum, Risk Assessment Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Chairperson's Guideline 4 Benefit of the Doubt Third Country Asylum +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant Minor

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Final Reasons and Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its assessment of the principal appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in concluding there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk to the minor American child in the United States
  3. 3 Whether Chairperson's Guideline 4 was applied appropriately

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal and confirmed the RPD because material contradictions, significant omissions, lack of corroboration regarding investigative steps, and implausible conduct (including failure to seek asylum in the US despite opportunity) undermined the principal appellant's credibility and the claim failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk to the US-national child under IRPA ss.96–97.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting claim for refugee protection and need for protection is upheld