MC0-02954
The RAD confirmed the RPD because the appellant failed to adduce new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and failed to rebut the RPD's credibility findings: multiple, significant contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in core aspects of her claim undermined her trustworthiness; the RPD applied the presumption of truthfulness and Guideline 4 appropriately; therefore the RPD's negative credibility finding and refusal of protection were justified and must be affirmed.
Source excerpt
- Credibility assessment
- Admission of new evidence (s.110(4) irpa)
- Presumption of truthfulness (maldonado)
- Guideline 4 (women refugee claimants)
- Internal flight alternative
- State protection