TA5-14697

TA5-14697

The Panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to establish his identity under section 106 IRPA and produced documentary evidence that the Panel found not credible or trustworthy; because identity, death of his father, corroboration of attacks, and baptism could not be established, the claimant failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution or a real 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(1)(a),(b) IRPA.

Citation
TA5-14697
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Designated Representative: Designated Representative; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision by Refugee Protection Division (first Instance)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Religion and Conscience, Identity Documents, Document Authenticity, Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Membership of a Particular Social Group Religion and Conscience Identity Documents +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Designated Representative

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision by Refugee Protection Division (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established identity in accordance with section 106 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee due to membership of a particular social group or religion
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to establish his identity under section 106 IRPA and produced documentary evidence that the Panel found not credible or trustworthy; because identity, death of his father, corroboration of attacks, and baptism could not be established, the claimant failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution or a real 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(1)(a),(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA.