TA5-10205

TA5-10205

The Panel rejected the claim because the principal claimant's testimony was found not credible, she admitted falsifying documents, no trustworthy corroborative evidence was produced for alleged threats or gang actions, and objective indicators showed no ongoing risk from the ex-spouse or family; therefore on balance of probabilities there is no well-founded fear of persecution nor a serious risk of harm under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA5-10205
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Beatriz Contreras; Respondent Counsel: Minister's Counsel; Decision Maker / Panel Member: E. Joanne Sajtos
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (claims Rejected)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Gender Related Persecution, Sexual Orientation, Protection Claim Under S.97 IRPA, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Gender Related Persecution Sexual Orientation Protection Claim Under S.97 IRPA +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent (daughter)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Beatriz Contreras

Counsel for Claimant

Minister's Counsel

Respondent Counsel

E. Joanne Sajtos

Decision Maker / Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (claims Rejected)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant and her daughter are Convention refugees by reason of membership in particular social groups (women in same-sex relationships; lesbians)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants face persecution or a serious risk of harm from the ex-spouse, family, community or gangs
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim because the principal claimant's testimony was found not credible, she admitted falsifying documents, no trustworthy corroborative evidence was produced for alleged threats or gang actions, and objective indicators showed no ongoing risk from the ex-spouse or family; therefore on balance of probabilities there is no well-founded fear of persecution nor a serious risk of harm under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b) IRPA

Orders

  • Claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and her dependant daughter XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are rejected
  • No Convention refugee status or protection under sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act granted