MA8-02382

MA8-02382

The claimant’s allegations were found not credible due to unjustified delay in claiming protection, inconsistent statements and implausible explanations (including ability to obtain a police certificate and depart via Tashkent) and lack of corroboration of the husband’s opposition activity; therefore she failed to meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or the s.97 threshold for a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA8-02382
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Decision Maker: Refugee Protection Division - Panel: Me Paule Robitaille
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Merits Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; 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, Humanitarian and Compassionate Application, Political Opinion, Particular Social Group, Delay in Making a Claim, Imputed Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Humanitarian and Compassionate Application Political Opinion +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Division - Panel: Me Paule Robitaille

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Merits Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant’s evidence and explanations are credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant’s allegations were found not credible due to unjustified delay in claiming protection, inconsistent statements and implausible explanations (including ability to obtain a police certificate and depart via Tashkent) and lack of corroboration of the husband’s opposition activity; therefore she failed to meet the burden to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or the s.97 threshold for a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection