MB9-15004

MB9-15004

The RAD concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable due to material omissions and contradictions in the principal appellant's BOC form, testimony and documents, which deprived the claims of probative support; the associate appellant's claim depended on the principal's non‑credible allegations and she failed independently to establish, on a balance of probabilities and in light of country documentation and her circumstances, a well‑founded fear as a woman; no new evidence warranted an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
MB9-15004
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Oral Hearing Request
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Risk Assessment Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of principal appellant's testimony and documentary evidence
  2. 2 whether associate appellant established an objective risk of gender-based persecution
  3. 3 whether an oral hearing was required under subsection 110(6) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable due to material omissions and contradictions in the principal appellant's BOC form, testimony and documents, which deprived the claims of probative support; the associate appellant's claim depended on the principal's non‑credible allegations and she failed independently to establish, on a balance of probabilities and in light of country documentation and her circumstances, a well‑founded fear as a woman; no new evidence warranted an oral hearing under s.110(6) IRPA, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection