MB9-08052

MB9-08052

The RPD legitimately rejected the appellants' claims because their testimony contained numerous material contradictions with their police report and other evidence, their explanations were unsatisfactory, documentary evidence lacked probative value in light of the credibility findings, and consequently appellants failed to prove risk on a balance of probabilities; RAD confirms RPD decision.

Citation
MB9-08052
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Protection, Documentary Evidence Weight, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Protection Documentary Evidence Weight Standard of Review

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether appellants' testimony was credible
  2. 2 whether documentary evidence overcomes credibility concerns
  3. 3 whether RPD's findings were perverse or capricious

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD legitimately rejected the appellants' claims because their testimony contained numerous material contradictions with their police report and other evidence, their explanations were unsatisfactory, documentary evidence lacked probative value in light of the credibility findings, and consequently appellants failed to prove risk on a balance of probabilities; RAD confirms RPD decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and the Refugee Protection Division determination confirmed that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.