MA6-01904

MA6-01904

Because the claimants' testimony and documentary evidence contained material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities and lacked corroboration, the panel found no credible evidence of the essential facts and rejected the claims under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Citation
MA6-01904
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Merits Hearing and Decision (hearing April 5, 2007; Decision May 7, 2007)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Inconsistency, Armed Forces Persecution, Witness Evidence, Country Conditions, Mexico, Spousal Claim Dependency
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Inconsistency Armed Forces Persecution Witness Evidence +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Merits Hearing and Decision (hearing April 5, 2007; Decision May 7, 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of claimants' testimony and documents

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimants' testimony and documentary evidence contained material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities and lacked corroboration, the panel found no credible evidence of the essential facts and rejected the claims under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • The claimants' claims for refugee protection are rejected.