MB9-07754

The RAD confirmed the RPD because material omissions and inconsistent, evolving explanations in the appellants' written and oral accounts critically undermined their credibility; on independent review the evidence did not establish refugee protection under IRPA ss.96-97.

Citation: MB9-07754
Parties: Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court: Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 10 February 2020
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics: Credibility Assessment, Standard of Review, Procedural Scope of Appeal, IRPA Remedies
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Standard of Review Procedural Scope of Appeal IRPA Remedies

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal Decision by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the RPD made an erroneous finding of fact in a perverse or capricious manner
2 Whether the RPD failed to consider all evidence before it
3 Whether the appellants were credible such that they qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96-97

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

The RAD confirms the RPD determination that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are neither Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under section 97
The appeal is dismissed