MA8-07482

MA8-07482

The panel rejected the claimants' refugee protection claim because the core testimony was fundamentally undermined by significant contradictions, omissions and implausibilities (notably the failure to disclose a supervised United States trip and conflicting accounts of detention and escape), so the claimants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk of torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment; medical diagnoses did not alter this conclusion.

Citation
MA8-07482
Parties
Female Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Male Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Decision‑maker (panel Member): Me Ruth Delisle
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Refused — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection; refugee protection claims rejected for principal claimants and their minor children.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Imputed Political Opinion, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Torture and Risk of Cruel Treatment, Procedural Accommodations for Vulnerable Persons, Port of Entry Interview and Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Membership in a Particular Social Group Imputed Political Opinion +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Female Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Male Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Me Ruth Delisle

Decision‑maker (panel Member)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face a well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a danger of torture or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether claimants belong to a particular social group (family of alleged political opponent; women)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' refugee protection claim because the core testimony was fundamentally undermined by significant contradictions, omissions and implausibilities (notably the failure to disclose a supervised United States trip and conflicting accounts of detention and escape), so the claimants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk of torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment; medical diagnoses did not alter this conclusion.

Court Disposition

Refused — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection; refugee protection claims rejected for principal claimants and their minor children.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and their minor children are rejected; no protection granted.