TA5-09310

TA5-09310

Abandonment of viable US remedies (including outstanding appeal and sponsorship by a husband with green card) demonstrated lack of subjective fear and asylum shopping; coupled with failure to provide corroborating identity documentation and due diligence, the evidence was insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection under s.97(1)(a) or s.97(1)(b) IRPA; children's claims also lacked credible basis given their US citizenship and father's lawful status, contrary to s.107(2) IRPA.

Citation
TA5-09310
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision Determination by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee claims dismissed. Claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection. Children’s claims have no credible basis.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Risk of Torture, Safe Third Country, Sponsorship, Identity Documents, Credibility and Abandonment, Children's Claims
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law International Protection Convention Refugee Risk of Torture Safe Third Country Sponsorship +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision Determination by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or s.97(1)(b) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant and sufficiency of identity documentation

Ratio Decidendi

Abandonment of viable US remedies (including outstanding appeal and sponsorship by a husband with green card) demonstrated lack of subjective fear and asylum shopping; coupled with failure to provide corroborating identity documentation and due diligence, the evidence was insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection under s.97(1)(a) or s.97(1)(b) IRPA; children's claims also lacked credible basis given their US citizenship and father's lawful status, contrary to s.107(2) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims dismissed. Claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection. Children’s claims have no credible basis.

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed
  • No protection granted; children’s claims denied pursuant to s.107(2) IRPA