TA6-01930

TA6-01930

The claims were dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the principal claimant's testimony contained multiple material inconsistencies with contemporaneous documents (dates of arrest, employment and salary), he failed to produce corroborating release documentation, and his ability to leave Laos undermined his asserted risk; consequently his evidence was not credible and both the Convention refugee and s.97(1) claims failed.

Citation
TA6-01930
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Under IRPA (convention Refugee and S.97 Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing De Novo — Decision Rendered After Multiple Sittings and Interpreter Audits
Outcome
Claims dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Interpreter/translation Issues, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Evidence and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) Credibility Assessment Interpreter/translation Issues Arbitrary Arrest and Detention +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Under IRPA (convention Refugee and S.97 Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing De Novo — Decision Rendered After Multiple Sittings and Interpreter Audits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether documentary evidence corroborates the claim
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant faces a risk meeting s.97(1) upon return

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were dismissed because on the balance of probabilities the principal claimant's testimony contained multiple material inconsistencies with contemporaneous documents (dates of arrest, employment and salary), he failed to produce corroborating release documentation, and his ability to leave Laos undermined his asserted risk; consequently his evidence was not credible and both the Convention refugee and s.97(1) claims failed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA.