MB8-20810

MB8-20810

The RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct because the applicant gave material and unexplained contradictions and omissions about the number, timing and identity of threatening calls and the sequence of events; those credibility findings defeated the core factual basis for risk of persecution, and therefore there was no serious possibility of persecution and the applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
MB8-20810
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision (rad)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Particular Social Group, Chairperson's Guideline 4, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Gender Based Persecution Particular Social Group +2 more

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious possibility of gender-based persecution (risk of rape) backed by Guideline 4 and jurisprudence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD independently reviewed the record and concluded the RPD's adverse credibility findings were correct because the applicant gave material and unexplained contradictions and omissions about the number, timing and identity of threatening calls and the sequence of events; those credibility findings defeated the core factual basis for risk of persecution, and therefore there was no serious possibility of persecution and the applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination confirmed that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA