TB7-10757

TB7-10757

On the balance of probabilities the appellants' core allegations were not credible because of unreasonable delay in claiming protection, unexplained and material omissions (absence of the factory name in petitions and BOCs), lack of corroborating documentation for the factory, blog and collaborator's arrest, and continuing alleged PSB harassment; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD and dismissed the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-10757
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX Mao
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / RAD Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Convention Refugee Status, Protection Claim Under S.97(1) IRPA, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Delay in Claiming Asylum Convention Refugee Status Protection Claim Under S.97(1) IRPA 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX Mao

Co Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division Under Irpa) / RAD Decision on Appeal From Refugee Protection Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in concluding the appellants were not credible
  2. 2 Whether the four-month delay in claiming refugee protection undermines the credibility of the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the alleged pesticide factory and petition documentation exist and are authentic

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the appellants' core allegations were not credible because of unreasonable delay in claiming protection, unexplained and material omissions (absence of the factory name in petitions and BOCs), lack of corroborating documentation for the factory, blog and collaborator's arrest, and continuing alleged PSB harassment; accordingly the RAD confirmed the RPD and dismissed the appeal under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA, the RAD confirms the determination of the RPD and dismisses the appeal.