MB8-10797

MB8-10797

The RAD, after an independent assessment of the record and hearing audio, found no evidence of a psychological condition to explain delays or testimonial problems; material delays, omissions and inconsistencies (including failure to disclose alleged persecution in a 2015 H&C application and unexplained omissions from the BoC) were relevant and central and sufficiently undermined the appellant's credibility so that the presumption of truth was displaced; consequently the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that he is in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB8-10797
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Decision Maker: Me Jo-Anne Pickel
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed 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, Convention Refugee Status, Protection (s.97 Irpa), Psychological Condition, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Ministerial Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Status Protection (s.97 Irpa) Psychological Condition Delay in Claiming Asylum +1 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Intervener

Me Jo-Anne Pickel

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's testimony was credible
  2. 2 Whether delays and omissions undermined the claim
  3. 3 Whether unproven psychological state could excuse delays or affect testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, after an independent assessment of the record and hearing audio, found no evidence of a psychological condition to explain delays or testimonial problems; material delays, omissions and inconsistencies (including failure to disclose alleged persecution in a 2015 H&C application and unexplained omissions from the BoC) were relevant and central and sufficiently undermined the appellant's credibility so that the presumption of truth was displaced; consequently the appellant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or that he is in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed 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
  • Decision of the RPD confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act