MA6-01633

MA6-01633

The panel found the claimant not credible due to material inconsistencies and implausibilities in his testimony, and on that basis concluded he did not prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a personal risk to his life under s.97(1); therefore the claim for refugee protection and for protection under s.97(1) is dismissed.

Citation
MA6-01633
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Danielle Arpin; Presiding Member: Jacques W. Fortier
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Particular Social Group, Risk to Life, Sexual Violence
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Persecution Particular Social Group +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Danielle Arpin

Claimant's Counsel

Jacques W. Fortier

Presiding Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant not credible due to material inconsistencies and implausibilities in his testimony, and on that basis concluded he did not prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a personal risk to his life under s.97(1); therefore the claim for refugee protection and for protection under s.97(1) is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection dismissed
  • No protection granted under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act