MB9-10676

MB9-10676

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the principal appellant's credibility was significantly undermined by material omissions and contradictions—notably failure to disclose political affiliation central to the claim, failure to report key threats and inconsistencies concerning who filed the police...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MB9-10676
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Corroboration of Evidence, Police Reports, Basis of Claim Form Omissions, Negative Inference
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Assessment Procedural Fairness Corroboration of Evidence Police Reports +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in rejecting the refugee claims based on credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether omissions and contradictions in the Basis of Claim Form and testimony justified drawing negative inferences
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred by failing to give probative value to police reports, Act of Death and photographs

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the principal appellant's credibility was significantly undermined by material omissions and contradictions—notably failure to disclose political affiliation central to the claim, failure to report key threats and inconsistencies concerning who filed the police complaint—and the documentary evidence did not corroborate the allegations; there was no breach of procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Refugee Protection Division decision confirmed

Orders

  • The Refugee Appeal Division confirms the RPD determination that the appellants are neither refugees under section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA; appeal dismissed