TC0-09769

TC0-09769

The RAD concluded that the appellants failed to establish identity on a balance of probabilities because expert CBSA analysis demonstrated the DRC passport and other documents were altered or inconsistent, the appellant offered no reasonable explanation or rebuttal to the expert findings, and additional evidence (biometrics, inconsistent itineraries, altered documents) undermined credibility; therefore the RPD's decision rejecting refugee protection was correct and dispositive without addressing state protection or IFA.

Citation
TC0-09769
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellants (minor Children): Minor children of principal appellant; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Identity, Credibility, Document Fraud, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Credibility Document Fraud State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

Minor children of principal appellant

Associate Appellants (minor Children)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellants' identity
  2. 2 Whether the DRC passport and other documents established identity on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether CBSA expert evidence regarding altered documents was properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded that the appellants failed to establish identity on a balance of probabilities because expert CBSA analysis demonstrated the DRC passport and other documents were altered or inconsistent, the appellant offered no reasonable explanation or rebuttal to the expert findings, and additional evidence (biometrics, inconsistent itineraries, altered documents) undermined credibility; therefore the RPD's decision rejecting refugee protection was correct and dispositive without addressing state protection or IFA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by Refugee Appeal Division
  • RPD determination that appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection is confirmed