TC0-06633

TC0-06633

The RPD's adverse credibility finding — grounded in material inconsistencies between the appellants' allegations and contemporaneous reporting, implausible explanations for why they alone would be targeted, their conduct after the incident, and unpersuasive corroborative declarations — was correct; on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to establish a real risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
TC0-06633
Parties
Appellant: Principal Appellant (name redacted); Appellant: Associate Appellant CY (name redacted); Appellant: Associate Appellant UY (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Reasons for Decision / Final Determination on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution, Torture, Extortion, State Protection, Delay in Claiming Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution Torture Extortion State Protection +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Appellant (name redacted)

Appellant

Associate Appellant CY (name redacted)

Appellant

Associate Appellant UY (name redacted)

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Reasons for Decision / Final Determination on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of appellants' testimony and supporting declarations
  2. 2 weight and reliability of corroborative evidence (newspaper article, medical report, statutory declarations)
  3. 3 whether appellants were targeted by cartel and nexus to risk on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility finding — grounded in material inconsistencies between the appellants' allegations and contemporaneous reporting, implausible explanations for why they alone would be targeted, their conduct after the incident, and unpersuasive corroborative declarations — was correct; on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to establish a real risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed.