MA3-05469

MA3-05469

The claim was rejected because the tribunal found the claimant's evidence and documentary exhibits not credible, documentary evidence (FIR and arrest warrant) was contradicted by an official Canadian inquiry in Pakistan and therefore the claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MA3-05469
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Dan M. Bohbot; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Designated Representative: Lawrence Shermarke; Minister's Counsel: N/A; Panel/member: Jeannine Beaubien-Duque
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / De Novo Hearing Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Forgery and Document Authenticity, Political Participation, Non Refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Forgery and Document Authenticity Political Participation +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Dan M. Bohbot

Claimant's Counsel

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Lawrence Shermarke

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Jeannine Beaubien-Duque

Panel/member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / De Novo Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence and documentary exhibits are credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the tribunal found the claimant's evidence and documentary exhibits not credible, documentary evidence (FIR and arrest warrant) was contradicted by an official Canadian inquiry in Pakistan and therefore the claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.