TA6-12381

TA6-12381

The claimant failed to establish his identity and key elements of his account because documentary evidence was unreliable or absent and his testimony contained pivotal inconsistencies; as a result the Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm on return and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-12381
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Panel: E. Joanne Sajtos; Counsel for Minister: n/a
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant denied Convention refugee status and protection under s.97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Persecution, Credibility and Identity, Section 97 Protection, Family Based Persecution, Religion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Persecution Credibility and Identity Section 97 Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

E. Joanne Sajtos

Panel

n/a

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on religion or membership in a particular social group
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant established identity and credibility as required by s.106 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish his identity and key elements of his account because documentary evidence was unreliable or absent and his testimony contained pivotal inconsistencies; as a result the Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not demonstrate a well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm on return and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant denied Convention refugee status and protection under s.97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA.