TA3-24887

TA3-24887

The panel found the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because their evidence was inconsistent, insufficiently corroborated and implausible; accordingly they are not Convention refugees and do not meet the threshold for protection under s.97 of the IRPA, so the claims are rejected.

Citation
TA3-24887
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (female): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: F. Sarwat; Minister's Counsel: Nil
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Negative Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Political Opinion, Torture and Cruel Treatment, Credibility and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee State Protection Political Opinion Torture and Cruel Treatment Credibility and Corroboration

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

F. Sarwat

Refugee Protection Officer

Nil

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Negative Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground (political opinion)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Whether the claimants face a danger of torture or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97 of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because their evidence was inconsistent, insufficiently corroborated and implausible; accordingly they are not Convention refugees and do not meet the threshold for protection under s.97 of the IRPA, so the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection