MA6-02100

MA6-02100

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to discharge the evidentiary burden: his testimony contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities and lacked available objective corroboration, so he did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Tunisia.

Citation
MA6-02100
Parties
Claimant / Asylum Seeker: XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker / Tribunal: Immigration and Refugee Board - Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Issued After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution of Family Members, Credibility Assessment, Corroboration, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Persecution of Family Members Credibility Assessment +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant / Asylum Seeker

Immigration and Refugee Board - Refugee Protection Division

Decision Maker / Tribunal

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Issued After Hearing

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(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant faces a real risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to discharge the evidentiary burden: his testimony contained material inconsistencies and implausibilities and lacked available objective corroboration, so he did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Tunisia.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied; no protection granted