MA8-04644
The panel found the claim arises from a single criminal incident without connection to a Convention ground, the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and significant credibility and corroboration deficiencies exist; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).
- Citation
- MA8-04644
- Parties
- Claimant: XXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 September 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision
- Outcome
- Claims rejected
- Legal Topics
- Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Credibility, Torture (cat), Imputed Political Opinion, Visa Fraud, Corruption
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX XXXXX
Claimant
XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
Claimant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
- 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
- 3 Whether the state can protect the claimants (Ward burden)
Ratio Decidendi
The panel found the claim arises from a single criminal incident without connection to a Convention ground, the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and significant credibility and corroboration deficiencies exist; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).
Court Disposition
Claims rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment