AA1-01039

AA1-01039

The claim was rejected because the panel found insufficient credible and corroborated evidence that the claimant is from or perceived to be from the Western Sahara, that he holds or is imputed with a persecutory political opinion, or that he would face a real risk of persecution or torture on return; documentary and internal inconsistencies (including a legitimately issued passport and unharmed return from Spain) negate a well-founded fear.

Citation
AA1-01039
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Byron Pfeiffer; Refugee Protection Officer: Onnig Beylerian; Panel: Eunice Harker; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee; not in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture (non Refoulement), Membership of a Particular Social Group, Military Service, Western Sahara
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear Persecution Credibility Assessment Risk of Torture (non Refoulement) +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Byron Pfeiffer

Claimant's Counsel

Onnig Beylerian

Refugee Protection Officer

Eunice Harker

Panel

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee based on political opinion, ethnicity or membership of a particular social group (Western Sahara origin)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant would face a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Morocco
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and sufficiently corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found insufficient credible and corroborated evidence that the claimant is from or perceived to be from the Western Sahara, that he holds or is imputed with a persecutory political opinion, or that he would face a real risk of persecution or torture on return; documentary and internal inconsistencies (including a legitimately issued passport and unharmed return from Spain) negate a well-founded fear.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee; not in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected
  • No protection granted; removal to Morocco permitted