TA8-14759

TA8-14759

The panel rejected the claim because the core allegations lacked credibility, were internally inconsistent and implausible, key documentary evidence was unreliable or uncorroborated, and on the balance of probabilities there was no well‑founded fear of persecution under s.96 nor personal risk under s.97 IRPA; therefore the claim fails and there was no credible basis under s.107(2).

Citation
TA8-14759
Parties
Male Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Female Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.96/97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Protection (s.97 Irpa), Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Extortion, Kidnapping
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Protection (s.97 Irpa) Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +2 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Male Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Female Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96/97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether removal would engage protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the core allegations lacked credibility, were internally inconsistent and implausible, key documentary evidence was unreliable or uncorroborated, and on the balance of probabilities there was no well‑founded fear of persecution under s.96 nor personal risk under s.97 IRPA; therefore the claim fails and there was no credible basis under s.107(2).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim rejected by Refugee Protection Division