MB8-13241

MB8-13241

The appeal was dismissed because the RAD agreed with the RPD that the appellant's allegations were not credible: material inconsistencies between the BOC, affidavit and oral testimony (notably the November 2015 attack), implausible assertions about family murders given documentary death certificates and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB8-13241
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Corroborating Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Corroborating Evidence Convention Refugee Determination

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's testimony was credible
  2. 2 Whether lack of corroborating documentation undermined the claim
  3. 3 Whether internal flight alternatives needed assessment given credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the RAD agreed with the RPD that the appellant's allegations were not credible: material inconsistencies between the BOC, affidavit and oral testimony (notably the November 2015 attack), implausible assertions about family murders given documentary death certificates and contradictory testimony about land ownership, and the absence of central corroborating documents and medical evidence. Credibility being determinative, the RAD confirmed the RPD decision that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed
  • No oral hearing held because no new evidence was admitted under subsection 110(4) IRPA