MA6-02417

MA6-02417

The claim is refused because the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence were materially inconsistent and non‑credible, undermining the core allegations of targeted persecution; consequently the claimant failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MA6-02417
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Panel Member: Ruth Delisle; Respondent Representative: Refugee Protection Officer
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (claim Refused)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Evidence Evaluation, Burden of Proof, Identity Documents, Persecution Risk
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Evidence Evaluation Burden of Proof +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Ruth Delisle

Panel Member

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (claim Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA (risk of torture, risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Credibility and consistency of claimant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is refused because the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence were materially inconsistent and non‑credible, undermining the core allegations of targeted persecution; consequently the claimant failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for refugee protection is rejected