TA9-00191

TA9-00191

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claimants' core allegations as not credible and not probably so; the asserted risk was generalized rather than specific, s.97(1)(b) applied, and absent subjective fear and corroboration the claimants failed to establish refugee status or need for protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
TA9-00191
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Extortion, Gang Violence, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Country, Corroboration, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Extortion Gang Violence +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the risk is personalized or generalized and thus excluded by s.97(1)(b)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' testimony given contradictions and omissions

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claimants' core allegations as not credible and not probably so; the asserted risk was generalized rather than specific, s.97(1)(b) applied, and absent subjective fear and corroboration the claimants failed to establish refugee status or need for protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claims rejected; claimants not found to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).