TA5-15354

TA5-15354

Material omissions and implausibilities in the claimants' account, combined with evidence of community support and lack of state-sanctioned or systematic discrimination rising to persecution, led the panel to conclude there was no nexus to a Convention ground, state protection or internal relocation were reasonable, and thus the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TA5-15354
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: P. Stolworthy
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility and Delay, Internal Relocation, Persecution, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Children's Rights Convention Refugee State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Credibility and Delay +3 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

P. Stolworthy

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Delay in claiming and omissions in Personal Information Form
  2. 2 Credibility of principal claimant's testimony
  3. 3 Whether state protection or community assistance was available

Ratio Decidendi

Material omissions and implausibilities in the claimants' account, combined with evidence of community support and lack of state-sanctioned or systematic discrimination rising to persecution, led the panel to conclude there was no nexus to a Convention ground, state protection or internal relocation were reasonable, and thus the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the claimants
  • No protection granted under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA