TB1-00607

TB1-00607

The claimants' accounts contained significant credibility defects and implausibilities (omissions in the PIF, destroyed alleged notes, inconsistent timing of threats and contacts, implausible email narrative) and there was no persuasive evidence of state involvement; on the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture, so their claims are rejected.

Citation
TB1-00607
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Reasons and Decision (final Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Particular Social Group (family), State Involvement in Persecution, Credibility and Omissions, Risk of Torture, Corruption
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Criminal Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Particular Social Group (family) +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Reasons and Decision (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' accounts contained significant credibility defects and implausibilities (omissions in the PIF, destroyed alleged notes, inconsistent timing of threats and contacts, implausible email narrative) and there was no persuasive evidence of state involvement; on the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture, so their claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims rejected by the Refugee Protection Division