TA8-07728

TA8-07728

The claimants' refugee protection claim was dismissed because the Panel found the oral testimony and documentary evidence not credible or insufficiently corroborative, characterized much of the conduct as neighborhood disputes rather than persecution for a Convention ground, found no compelling evidence of ineffective state protection or a real risk of torture, and therefore concluded the claimants failed to meet the burden under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
TA8-07728
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXX; Claimant: XXX XXXX XXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / Decision (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Torture, Religious Persecution, Extortion, Membership in Social Group
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection +4 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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXX

Claimant

XXX XXXX XXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / Decision (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97(1)
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimants' oral and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' refugee protection claim was dismissed because the Panel found the oral testimony and documentary evidence not credible or insufficiently corroborative, characterized much of the conduct as neighborhood disputes rather than persecution for a Convention ground, found no compelling evidence of ineffective state protection or a real risk of torture, and therefore concluded the claimants failed to meet the burden under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims rejected pursuant to IRPA ss.96 and 97(1)
  • No protection granted