TB5-03545

TB5-03545

The RAD, after independent review of the hearing record and documents and affording deference where appropriate to RPD credibility findings, found multiple material inconsistencies between the appellant's testimony and supporting documents, evolving explanations, and insufficient provenance for corroborating...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB5-03545
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: Minister
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard and Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Corroboration of Evidence, Standard of Review, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Corroboration of Evidence Standard of Review Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Heard and Decided by Refugee Appeal Division (rad) Following RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD improperly assessed or failed to authenticate corroborating documents
  3. 3 What standard of review the RAD must apply when reviewing RPD decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, after independent review of the hearing record and documents and affording deference where appropriate to RPD credibility findings, found multiple material inconsistencies between the appellant's testimony and supporting documents, evolving explanations, and insufficient provenance for corroborating materials; those credibility and corroboration deficiencies meant the appellant failed to show a serious possibility of persecution or risk on return, so the RPD decision was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the RAD confirms the RPD decision and dismisses the appeal.