TB4-06208

TB4-06208

The RAD affirms the RPD because the RPD's credibility findings and evidentiary weightings were supportable: the appellant demonstrated significant inconsistencies and lacked knowledge expected of a political candidate, objective biometrics conflicted with testimony, documentary evidence could be forged, and the appellant's failure to claim protection in the USA undermined subjective fear; on that basis the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-06208
Parties
Appellant: XXXXXXXX (Appellant); Spouse: XXXXX (A2); Child: XXXXX (M1); Child: XXXXX (M2)
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / RAD Decision Reviewing and Confirming RPD Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution, Imputed Sexual Orientation, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country, Weight of Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Persecution +3 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX (Appellant)

Appellant

XXXXX (A2)

Spouse

XXXXX (M1)

Child

XXXXX (M2)

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (refugee Appeal Division) / RAD Decision Reviewing and Confirming RPD Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether the RPD properly weighed documentary evidence including party membership documents
  3. 3 Whether imputed sexual orientation was reasonably found

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD affirms the RPD because the RPD's credibility findings and evidentiary weightings were supportable: the appellant demonstrated significant inconsistencies and lacked knowledge expected of a political candidate, objective biometrics conflicted with testimony, documentary evidence could be forged, and the appellant's failure to claim protection in the USA undermined subjective fear; on that basis the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed; Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Confirm the decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated June 9, 2014
  • Dismiss the appeals of the appellants