MB0-00227

MB0-00227

The panel rejected the claimants' refugee protection claim because fundamental inconsistencies, omissions and lack of corroboration defeated credibility on central allegations and therefore the panel could not find a nexus between the alleged harm and a Convention ground; accordingly claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MB0-00227
Parties
Claimant/designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution, Credibility, Particular Social Group, Family, Political Participation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Persecution Credibility +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant/designated Representative

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under IRPA s.96 and s.97
  2. 2 Credibility assessment of testimonial and documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether alleged harm is connected to a Convention ground (political opinion or imputed political opinion)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' refugee protection claim because fundamental inconsistencies, omissions and lack of corroboration defeated credibility on central allegations and therefore the panel could not find a nexus between the alleged harm and a Convention ground; accordingly claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected; removal order may follow pursuant to applicable procedures