MB4-03785

MB4-03785

The RAD, on independent review with deference to credibility findings, found the RPD did not err: the appellant's numerous contradictions and omissions, implausible explanations, and failure to claim protection in Mexico fatally undermined credibility such that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he faces a risk under s.97 IRPA; no reasonable apprehension of bias was shown; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Citation
MB4-03785
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Public Safety of Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Appearance of Bias, Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugee), Section 97 IRPA (person in Need of Protection), Standard of Proof (balance of Probabilities), Failure to Claim Protection Abroad, Article 1 F(b) Exclusion, Interpretation Issues
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Appearance of Bias Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugee) Section 97 IRPA (person in Need of Protection) Standard of Proof (balance of Probabilities) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety of Canada

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing appellant's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the RPD displayed actual or apprehended bias
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established risk to life on balance of probabilities under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD, on independent review with deference to credibility findings, found the RPD did not err: the appellant's numerous contradictions and omissions, implausible explanations, and failure to claim protection in Mexico fatally undermined credibility such that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he faces a risk under s.97 IRPA; no reasonable apprehension of bias was shown; appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the RPD determination is confirmed: the appellant is neither a Convention refugee (s.96 IRPA) nor a person in need of protection (s.97 IRPA).