TB9-07632

TB9-07632

The RAD applied the correctness standard and concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record (vagueness, contradictions between the BOC and testimony and IMM 5669, implausible account of payment, lack of documentary corroboration) and these credibility defects went to central elements of the claim, warranting dismissal of the refugee and protected person claims under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB9-07632
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is not a refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Credibility, Persecution, Political Opinion, Membership in Political Party, Risk of Torture, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Persecution Political Opinion Membership in Political Party Risk of Torture +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its adverse credibility finding
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture because of political opinion/membership in UFDG
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to consider evidence related to murders and an attack alleged by the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD applied the correctness standard and concluded the RPD did not err: the RPD's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record (vagueness, contradictions between the BOC and testimony and IMM 5669, implausible account of payment, lack of documentary corroboration) and these credibility defects went to central elements of the claim, warranting dismissal of the refugee and protected person claims under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed that appellant is not a refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed