MA9-05275

MA9-05275

The claimant's evidence was found not credible and implausible on key points (police harassment and sexual molestation), the conduct of the ex-son-in-law did not amount to persecution of the claimant herself, and there is no reasonable possibility she would face persecution, risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA9-05275
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed. Claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under section 97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Credibility and Plausibility, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Particular Social Group State Protection Credibility and Plausibility +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether claimant belongs to a particular social group (family) that faces persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was found not credible and implausible on key points (police harassment and sexual molestation), the conduct of the ex-son-in-law did not amount to persecution of the claimant herself, and there is no reasonable possibility she would face persecution, risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. Claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under section 97(1).