TB0-01056

TB0-01056

The claims are dismissed because on a balance of probabilities the claimants failed to establish credibility and provide corroborative evidence, their substantial unexplained delay fatally undermines their claimed subjective fear, and the harms alleged are criminal/generalized risks lacking nexus to a Convention ground and thus excluded under s.97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TB0-01056
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX; Male Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects both refugee claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Delay in Making a Claim, Generalized Risk, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Organized Crime, Extortion, Lack of Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Delay in Making a Claim Generalized Risk +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX

Male Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants' testimony is credible and corroborated
  2. 2 Whether delay in claiming undermines subjective fear
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are dismissed because on a balance of probabilities the claimants failed to establish credibility and provide corroborative evidence, their substantial unexplained delay fatally undermines their claimed subjective fear, and the harms alleged are criminal/generalized risks lacking nexus to a Convention ground and thus excluded under s.97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects both refugee claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects both refugee claims