MC0-03199

MC0-03199

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable: appellants' failure to seek asylum while present in multiple safe countries and their vague explanations undermined their claim of ongoing risk; documentary evidence did not objectively establish continued targeting; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MC0-03199
Parties
Appellant: Principal appellant (name redacted); Associate Appellant: Female associate appellant (name redacted); Associate Appellant: Minor male associate appellant (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Rejection
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Refugee Protection, Risk Assessment, Asylum Application Timing, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Refugee Protection Risk Assessment Asylum Application Timing Standard of Review

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

Parties

Principal appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Female associate appellant (name redacted)

Associate Appellant

Minor male associate appellant (name redacted)

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Appeal Division Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Rejection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are credible
  2. 2 Whether failure to apply for asylum in transit countries undermines claim
  3. 3 Whether appellants face a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's adverse credibility finding was reasonable: appellants' failure to seek asylum while present in multiple safe countries and their vague explanations undermined their claim of ongoing risk; documentary evidence did not objectively establish continued targeting; therefore appellants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed