MB9-07492

MB9-07492

Although the RAD identified specific errors in the RPD's reasoning, the combination of credible negative findings—limited and inadequate attempts to corroborate the father's alleged national political role, clear indicators that the lawyer letters and chambers ID were inauthentic, and implausible aspects of the appellants' travel narrative—justified rejecting the appellants' claims on credibility grounds and confirming the RPD decision denying refugee protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Citation
MB9-07492
Parties
Appellant: Ms. XXXX XXXX; Appellant: Mr. XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Corroboration of Evidence, Document Authenticity, Safe Third Country, IRPA S.111(1)(a)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Corroboration of Evidence Document Authenticity Safe Third Country IRPA S.111(1)(a)

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms. XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Mr. XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether documents purportedly from the family's lawyer were authentic
  3. 3 Whether appellants made reasonable efforts to corroborate the father's alleged national political involvement

Ratio Decidendi

Although the RAD identified specific errors in the RPD's reasoning, the combination of credible negative findings—limited and inadequate attempts to corroborate the father's alleged national political role, clear indicators that the lawyer letters and chambers ID were inauthentic, and implausible aspects of the appellants' travel narrative—justified rejecting the appellants' claims on credibility grounds and confirming the RPD decision denying refugee protection under IRPA s.111(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated March 19, 2019 confirmed