TB8-06396

TB8-06396

The Tribunal confirmed the RPD's decision because material omissions in the Principal Appellant's BOC and unexplained inconsistencies in the Appellants' travel history rationally rebutted the presumption of truth; combined with the Principal Appellant's insufficient demonstrated knowledge of Falun Gong, these grounds justified adverse credibility findings and denial of refugee protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-06396
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Second Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Basis of Claim (boc) Omissions, Falun Gong Practice, Well Founded Fear, Travel History, New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Appeal Review (s.111(1)(a) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Basis of Claim (boc) Omissions Falun Gong Practice Well Founded Fear +3 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in drawing adverse credibility inferences from omissions in the Principal Appellant's BOC
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in assessing and drawing adverse credibility inferences from the Appellants' travel history to Canada
  3. 3 Whether the RPD misapplied Elazi in assessing unexplained documentary gaps

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal confirmed the RPD's decision because material omissions in the Principal Appellant's BOC and unexplained inconsistencies in the Appellants' travel history rationally rebutted the presumption of truth; combined with the Principal Appellant's insufficient demonstrated knowledge of Falun Gong, these grounds justified adverse credibility findings and denial of refugee protection under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • RPD decision confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act