MA5-01119

MA5-01119

Because the claimant's testimony contained material, unexplained inconsistencies with prior statements to the visa office and CIC and within her hearing testimony, and because the alleged incidents did not establish a serious risk of persecution, torture or risk to life as required by ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA, the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she or her children are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection; claim denied.

Citation
MA5-01119
Parties
Principal Claimant: Mrs. XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Fred Saikali; Panel Member: Lawrence Lang; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Persecution, Sponsorship, Inconsistency of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Persecution Sponsorship +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Fred Saikali

Claimant's Counsel

Lawrence Lang

Panel Member

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA due to race (Tamil) or other grounds
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA (risk of torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and consistent

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant's testimony contained material, unexplained inconsistencies with prior statements to the visa office and CIC and within her hearing testimony, and because the alleged incidents did not establish a serious risk of persecution, torture or risk to life as required by ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA, the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she or her children are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection; claim denied.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims MA5‑01119 MA5‑01120 MA5‑01121 dismissed