TB0-13023

TB0-13023

The Panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant's testimony and key documentary evidence not credible (significant unexplained omissions, contradictions and implausibilities, and fabricated elements), the claimant was not shown to be personally targeted or perceived as LTTE-linked, and credible country documentation shows post-2009 improvements such that there is no serious possibility of persecution on return; therefore claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-13023
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Country Conditions, Change in Circumstances, Gender Based Persecution, Disclosure Rules, Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Country Conditions +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.2/ss.96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant's PIF and oral testimony (omissions, contradictions, alleged fabrications)
  3. 3 Whether claimant would face persecution on return given post-war changes in Sri Lanka (changed country conditions)

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant's testimony and key documentary evidence not credible (significant unexplained omissions, contradictions and implausibilities, and fabricated elements), the claimant was not shown to be personally targeted or perceived as LTTE-linked, and credible country documentation shows post-2009 improvements such that there is no serious possibility of persecution on return; therefore claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected by RPD (decision dated September 13, 2011)