MA9-07929

MA9-07929

The panel rejected the claimant's protection claim because the claimant's testimony contained material omissions and inconsistencies undermining credibility, she failed to establish a subjective fear of persecution or a real risk on Convention grounds, and her failure to seek asylum in other signatory countries (UK, US) and the questionable probative value of submitted documents meant she did not meet the burden to establish refugee status or need for protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
MA9-07929
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Dan M. Bohbot; Panel Member: Me Sonia Beaupré; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Asylum, Credibility Findings, Recusal/appearance of Bias, Postponement Requests, Personal Information Form Amendments and Disclosure, Failure to Seek Protection in Transit Countries, Gender Related Persecution Guideline
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Asylum Credibility Findings Recusal/appearance of Bias Postponement Requests Personal Information Form Amendments and Disclosure +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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Dan M. Bohbot

Claimant's Counsel

Me Sonia Beaupré

Panel Member

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant given omissions and inconsistencies in PIF and testimony
  3. 3 Whether claimant demonstrated subjective fear of persecution or real risk on Convention grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's protection claim because the claimant's testimony contained material omissions and inconsistencies undermining credibility, she failed to establish a subjective fear of persecution or a real risk on Convention grounds, and her failure to seek asylum in other signatory countries (UK, US) and the questionable probative value of submitted documents meant she did not meet the burden to establish refugee status or need for protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1)
  • Application for postponement dismissed