MB5-01908

MB5-01908

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's central allegations were implausible and inconsistent, his credibility was substantially undermined, and he failed to establish risk on the balance of probabilities or to provide satisfactory explanation for delay; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Citation
MB5-01908
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal RAD Confirms RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection Claim, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Claim Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Dependent (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision on Appeal RAD Confirms RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant's central allegations were implausible and inconsistent, his credibility was substantially undermined, and he failed to establish risk on the balance of probabilities or to provide satisfactory explanation for delay; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The determination of the Refugee Protection Division is confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.
  • The appeal is dismissed.