MA8-05026

MA8-05026

On the balance of probabilities the claimant did not prove he was specifically targeted for persecution for a Convention ground or that state protection would be unavailable; credibility concerns, inconsistencies between testimony, PIF and POE, and lack of corroborating documentary evidence defeat the claim, therefore the claim is refused under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA8-05026
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: Stephen J. Gallagher; Tribunal Officer: Myra Shuster; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (section 96 and 97 Irpa) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim denied; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Social Group, Political Opinion, Torture/convention Against Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection Social Group +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Stephen J. Gallagher

Decision Maker

Myra Shuster

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (section 96 and 97 Irpa) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether alleged persecution is for a Convention ground (nexus)

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant did not prove he was specifically targeted for persecution for a Convention ground or that state protection would be unavailable; credibility concerns, inconsistencies between testimony, PIF and POE, and lack of corroborating documentary evidence defeat the claim, therefore the claim is refused under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim denied; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed