TB9-28093

TB9-28093

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the appellant repeatedly gave inconsistent, contradictory, and unreasonably explained accounts of his same-sex relationships and other central facts; corroborative documents did not overcome these central credibility defects, so the appellant failed to prove entitlement to refugee protection or protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
TB9-28093
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection, Corroborative Evidence, Sexual Orientation Persecution, Multiple Nationality
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights (sexual Orientation) Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection Corroborative Evidence Sexual Orientation Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Decision on Appeal (refugee Appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility assessment of the appellant
  2. 2 Whether corroborative documents from LGBTQ organizations and witnesses outweigh credibility concerns
  3. 3 Whether the appellant proved he faces a real risk of persecution in his countries of nationality (Liberia and Nigeria)

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the appellant repeatedly gave inconsistent, contradictory, and unreasonably explained accounts of his same-sex relationships and other central facts; corroborative documents did not overcome these central credibility defects, so the appellant failed to prove entitlement to refugee protection or protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division confirms the Refugee Protection Division's decision denying the appellant refugee protection; the appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.