TB8-29195

TB8-29195

The RAD affirmed the RPD because the Appellant's claim was fatally undermined by fundamental, unexplained inconsistencies between his written BOC, oral testimony and supporting documents, by vague political knowledge inconsistent with his claimed activities, and by his failure to produce corroborating party evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB8-29195
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Political Membership and Residual Risk, Country Condition Evidence, Adverse Inference Under Rule 11, Documentary Evidence Weight
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Political Membership and Residual Risk Country Condition Evidence Adverse Inference Under Rule 11 Documentary Evidence Weight

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant is a credible witness
  2. 2 Whether inconsistencies between the BOC, oral testimony and documentary evidence undermine the claim
  3. 3 Whether mere party membership establishes a residual risk of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirmed the RPD because the Appellant's claim was fatally undermined by fundamental, unexplained inconsistencies between his written BOC, oral testimony and supporting documents, by vague political knowledge inconsistent with his claimed activities, and by his failure to produce corroborating party evidence under Rule 11, such that he was not a credible witness and could not establish risk as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the Refugee Protection Division that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.