MC0-04239

MC0-04239

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD reasonably found the appellants not credible based on omissions, inconsistencies and documentary context; Guideline 4 was considered and properly applied; no language/interpretation failure was demonstrated that affected the hearing; and the minor daughters' claims failed because they relied entirely on the parent's discredited testimony.

Citation
MC0-04239
Parties
Appellant: Mr. XXXX; Appellant: Ms. XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor); Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Procedural Fairness and Right to Interpretation, Application of IRB Chairperson's Guideline 4, Minor's Refugee Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Procedural Fairness and Right to Interpretation Application of IRB Chairperson's Guideline 4 Minor's Refugee Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXX

Appellant

Ms. XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor)

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (reasons for Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding the appellants not credible
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to implement or consider Chairperson's Guideline 4 in a gender-based claim
  3. 3 Whether language/interpretation issues deprived appellants of procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD reasonably found the appellants not credible based on omissions, inconsistencies and documentary context; Guideline 4 was considered and properly applied; no language/interpretation failure was demonstrated that affected the hearing; and the minor daughters' claims failed because they relied entirely on the parent's discredited testimony.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision of February 3, 2020 is confirmed