MB4-05035

MB4-05035

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because, on an independent assessment with appropriate deference to RPD credibility findings, the appellant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution: adverse findings on credibility, unexplained delays, failure to seek asylum in France, and implausible or unreliable documentary evidence meant there was no credible basis for protection.

Citation
MB4-05035
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor/respondent: Minister of Public Safety Canada
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Identity/document Fraud, Domestic Violence, Implausibility Findings, Standard of Review/deference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence Delay in Claiming Asylum Identity/document Fraud Domestic Violence +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety Canada

Intervenor/respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision by Refugee Appeal Division Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether appellant was persecuted by husband
  2. 2 whether RPD erred in credibility findings
  3. 3 admissibility of voter's card/new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because, on an independent assessment with appropriate deference to RPD credibility findings, the appellant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution: adverse findings on credibility, unexplained delays, failure to seek asylum in France, and implausible or unreliable documentary evidence meant there was no credible basis for protection.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; determination of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed that appellant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA