MA4-07355

MA4-07355

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's central account was found not credible and uncontested documentary research contradicted a key factual assertion about the alleged persecutor's whereabouts; absent credible evidence of risk, the claim fails both under section 96 and subsection 97(1) and is properly refused under subsection 107(2).

Citation
MA4-07355
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jorge J. Colasurdo; Refugee Protection Officer: Michel Colin; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Panel Chair: Roger Houde; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing — Decision
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; claims have no credible basis under subsection 107(2) of the Act.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Violence Against Women, Credibility Assessment, Subsection 107(2) (no Credible Basis)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Violence Against Women Credibility Assessment Subsection 107(2) (no Credible Basis)

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Me Jorge J. Colasurdo

Claimant's Counsel

Michel Colin

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Roger Houde

Panel Chair

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing — Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's central account was found not credible and uncontested documentary research contradicted a key factual assertion about the alleged persecutor's whereabouts; absent credible evidence of risk, the claim fails both under section 96 and subsection 97(1) and is properly refused under subsection 107(2).

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; claims have no credible basis under subsection 107(2) of the Act.

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected.
  • No protection is granted to the claimants.