MA5-03295

MA5-03295

The claimant's testimony contained material contradictions, vagueness and lack of detail; consequently the tribunal found him not credible, gave no probative weight to his documents, and concluded he failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that he would face torture or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return; claim rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA5-03295
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Lainie Wieskopf; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Panel Member: Michel Faure; Claimant's Counsel: Robert Blanshay; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Claim Adjudication)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Order of Questioning, Disclosure and Probative Value
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Order of Questioning Disclosure and Probative Value

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Lainie Wieskopf

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Michel Faure

Panel Member

Robert Blanshay

Claimant's Counsel

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Claim Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and establishes risk on a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony contained material contradictions, vagueness and lack of detail; consequently the tribunal found him not credible, gave no probative weight to his documents, and concluded he failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that he would face torture or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return; claim rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed; no protection granted