TB3-04920

TB3-04920

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on a de novo review, the cumulative effect of significant inconsistencies, omissions, evolving and contradictory testimony, lack of corroborating documentary evidence, demonstrated access to fraudulent documents and limited probative weight of psychiatric evidence left the panel...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB3-04920
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Dependent (daughter): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / De Novo RAD Reconsideration After Federal Court Remittal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determinations that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Judicial Remittal, Corroboration of Evidence
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Judicial Remittal Corroboration of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Dependent (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / De Novo RAD Reconsideration After Federal Court Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should substitute the RPD decision or remit for redetermination

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because, on a de novo review, the cumulative effect of significant inconsistencies, omissions, evolving and contradictory testimony, lack of corroborating documentary evidence, demonstrated access to fraudulent documents and limited probative weight of psychiatric evidence left the panel not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility the appellants would be persecuted or subjected to a risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or torture in Nigeria; the dependent daughter's claim also fails.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determinations that appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Determinations of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act