MB7-03365

MB7-03365

The RAD applied the correctness standard, conducted an independent review of the hearing, and confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the appellant's testimony contained significant contradictions and additions inconsistent with his written account, lacked corroborating evidence for critical...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB7-03365
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Delay in Claiming Protection, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Delay in Claiming Protection Standard of Review

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing the appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider relevant elements of the appellant's particular circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's delay in claiming protection undermines his subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied the correctness standard, conducted an independent review of the hearing, and confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the appellant's testimony contained significant contradictions and additions inconsistent with his written account, lacked corroborating evidence for critical allegations, and the lengthy delay in claiming protection diminished the plausibility of a subjective fear; accordingly the appellant failed to establish he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD determination that appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • RAD confirms the RPD determination that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.