MB8-16084

MB8-16084

Despite some errors in the RPD's credibility analysis, the appellants failed to prove either a well-founded fear of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment; the female appellant did not show an ongoing individualized threat nor that being a woman would expose her to a serious possibility of persecution given family and spouse support, and the male appellant produced no evidence of threats after 2004; the minor made no claim.

Citation
MB8-16084
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Risk Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)), Gender Based Persecution, Asylum Delay
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Risk Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)) +2 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / Reasons and Decision on Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether appellants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Assessment of credibility and inferences from delay and omissions

Ratio Decidendi

Despite some errors in the RPD's credibility analysis, the appellants failed to prove either a well-founded fear of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment; the female appellant did not show an ongoing individualized threat nor that being a woman would expose her to a serious possibility of persecution given family and spouse support, and the male appellant produced no evidence of threats after 2004; the minor made no claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection