MB4-02620

MB4-02620

The RPD's adverse credibility finding was supported by multiple material inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities that went to the core of the claim; because the appellant was found not credible, the RAD confirmed that he did not establish a well-founded fear as a member of the alleged social group (those accused of witchcraft) and, on the balance of probabilities, did not face the personal risks under s.97 given his age and the documentary evidence; therefore the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB4-02620
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Decision (rad Review) Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, Persecution — Accusations of Witchcraft
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review Persecution — Accusations of Witchcraft

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Appeal Decision (rad Review) Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA as a member of a particular social group (those accused of witchcraft)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA (risk of torture, cruel or unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Adequacy of RPD reasons and credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD's adverse credibility finding was supported by multiple material inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities that went to the core of the claim; because the appellant was found not credible, the RAD confirmed that he did not establish a well-founded fear as a member of the alleged social group (those accused of witchcraft) and, on the balance of probabilities, did not face the personal risks under s.97 given his age and the documentary evidence; therefore the RPD decision was confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision dated June 17, 2014 is confirmed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.