TC1-04739

TC1-04739

The RAD confirms the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on inconsistent testimony, omissions in the Basis of Claim (notably omission of other children), unexplained delay in seeking protection, and lack of objective evidence of threats; these credibility failings and absence of a forward-looking risk mean the Appellants do not meet the tests under s.96 or s.97 IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TC1-04739
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant; Appellant: Associate Appellant
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, New Evidence, Convention Refugee Status (s.96 Irpa), Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Delay in Claiming, Gender Based Violence, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility New Evidence Convention Refugee Status (s.96 Irpa) Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Delay in Claiming +2 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

Principal Appellant

Appellant

Associate Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) / Final Decision on Appeal Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellants met the tests for Convention refugee status under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants met the tests for person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirms the RPD's adverse credibility findings based on inconsistent testimony, omissions in the Basis of Claim (notably omission of other children), unexplained delay in seeking protection, and lack of objective evidence of threats; these credibility failings and absence of a forward-looking risk mean the Appellants do not meet the tests under s.96 or s.97 IRPA, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed: Appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection