TB5-08681

TB5-08681

On an independent assessment the RAD concluded the appellant failed to prove he is a homosexual or that he was in the alleged relationship; material credibility deficits (inability to describe the relationship, implausible concealment and departure narrative, failure to corroborate, and post‑hearing evidence of false identity) rendered the claim unproven and justified confirmation of the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-08681
Parties
Appellant: Oduware Austin Ojo; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision Confirming RPD (final Appeal Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sexual Orientation Claims, Corroboration, Standard of Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sexual Orientation Claims Corroboration Standard of Review Procedural Fairness

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oduware Austin Ojo

Appellant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Refugee Appeal Division Decision Confirming RPD (final Appeal Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings regarding the appellant's sexual orientation and relationship with XXXX
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established status as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection based on sexual orientation
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should substitute a positive determination or confirm the RPD pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

On an independent assessment the RAD concluded the appellant failed to prove he is a homosexual or that he was in the alleged relationship; material credibility deficits (inability to describe the relationship, implausible concealment and departure narrative, failure to corroborate, and post‑hearing evidence of false identity) rendered the claim unproven and justified confirmation of the RPD decision under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed
  • No oral hearing ordered and no substitution of a positive determination