MB7-10156
The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD reasonably found the appellant's testimony inconsistent and that he misrepresented his status and marital history; on that basis, the appellant is not a refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
- Citation
- MB7-10156
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Public Safety of Canada
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 December 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Appeal / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; RPD determination affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Credibility, Permanent Resident Status, Standard of Review, Refugee Protection, Intervention
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX
Appellant
Minister of Public Safety of Canada
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting the appellant's credibility
- 2 Whether the appellant held permanent resident status in Brazil
- 3 Whether the RPD's factual findings support refusal of refugee protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA
Ratio Decidendi
The RAD concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD reasonably found the appellant's testimony inconsistent and that he misrepresented his status and marital history; on that basis, the appellant is not a refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination affirmed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The determination that the person is not a refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment