MB8-18760

MB8-18760

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, applying the correctness standard, agreed with the RPD that material contradictions between written and oral accounts, the appellants' failure to provide or reasonably seek corroborating employer documentation and significant omissions in police complaints undermined credibility; consequently appellants failed to discharge the balance of probabilities burden under s.97(1) IRPA and did not establish Convention refugee status under s.96 IRPA.

Citation
MB8-18760
Parties
Appellant: Unknown Male Appellant; Appellant: Unknown Female Appellant; Appellant Minor: Unknown Child 1 (minor); Appellant Minor: Unknown Child 2 (minor)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution/torture, Corroboration of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Gender Based Violence, State Protection, Statutory Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution/torture Corroboration of Evidence Procedural Fairness Gender Based Violence +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Male Appellant

Appellant

Unknown Female Appellant

Appellant

Unknown Child 1 (minor)

Appellant Minor

Unknown Child 2 (minor)

Appellant Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants met the balance of probabilities test under s.97(1) IRPA for risk of torture or death
  2. 2 Whether appellants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly assessed credibility and could require corroboration from employers

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the RAD, applying the correctness standard, agreed with the RPD that material contradictions between written and oral accounts, the appellants' failure to provide or reasonably seek corroborating employer documentation and significant omissions in police complaints undermined credibility; consequently appellants failed to discharge the balance of probabilities burden under s.97(1) IRPA and did not establish Convention refugee status under s.96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal under paragraph 111(1)(a) of IRPA
  • Determination confirmed that appellants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection