TA8-13352

TA8-13352

The panel rejected the claims because it found the principal claimant's material assertions not credible on a balance of probabilities (implausible exclusivity of company information, inconsistent account of FARC conduct, failure to seek available protection and to apply for asylum in the U.S.), and therefore concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
TA8-13352
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (represented): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (hearing March 10, 2010; Decision April 30, 2010)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Nexus to Persecutor, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Country, State/company Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminality/extortion Armed Conflict Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Nexus to Persecutor +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (represented)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (hearing March 10, 2010; Decision April 30, 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the principal claimant's account

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because it found the principal claimant's material assertions not credible on a balance of probabilities (implausible exclusivity of company information, inconsistent account of FARC conduct, failure to seek available protection and to apply for asylum in the U.S.), and therefore concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Orders

  • Claims rejected.