MB9-02227

MB9-02227

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the appellant failed to account for material omissions and contradictions (notably omission of an armed group of ~200 people, failure to disclose a crucial 2016 warning, contradictions about harm to sisters and children) and because of the long unexplained delay in seeking protection while in the United States; those findings defeat the threshold for establishing refugee or protection status under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
MB9-02227
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minister: Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Standard of Review, State Protection, Delay in Claiming Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Standard of Review State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in assessing credibility
  2. 2 Whether material omissions and contradictions justified rejection of claim
  3. 3 Whether claimant established fear of persecution or risk of serious harm on return

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's adverse credibility finding because the appellant failed to account for material omissions and contradictions (notably omission of an armed group of ~200 people, failure to disclose a crucial 2016 warning, contradictions about harm to sisters and children) and because of the long unexplained delay in seeking protection while in the United States; those findings defeat the threshold for establishing refugee or protection status under ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD determination confirmed that appellant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • RPD determination of December 31, 2018 confirmed