MA9-08923

MA9-08923

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant was found not credible due to material omissions, contradictions and implausibilities and failure to produce key corroborative documents (police complaint/report); consequently he failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1).

Citation
MA9-08923
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Danielle Arpin; Panel: Renée Bourque; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under s.97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions (burundi), Persecution of Family Member, Production of Documents
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Persecution Credibility Assessment Country Conditions (burundi) +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Me Danielle Arpin

Claimant's Counsel

Renée Bourque

Panel

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and written narrative

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant was found not credible due to material omissions, contradictions and implausibilities and failure to produce key corroborative documents (police complaint/report); consequently he failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under s.97(1).