MA9-08976
The claims were rejected because the tribunal found the claimants not credible due to material omissions and contradictions in testimony and documents; on that basis the claimants failed to establish the required 'serious possibility' of persecution under s.96 or on a balance of probabilities a risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97.
- Citation
- MA9-08976
- Parties
- Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (hearing Concluded)
- Outcome
- Claimants' refugee protection claims rejected.
- Legal Topics
- Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Persecution by Non State Actors, State Protection, Domestic Violence, Harm From Drug Trafficking Groups
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Principal Claimant
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Spouse Claimant
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (hearing Concluded)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimants meet the definition of Convention refugee under IRPA s.96
- 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97(1)
- 3 Credibility and weight of testimonial and documentary evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The claims were rejected because the tribunal found the claimants not credible due to material omissions and contradictions in testimony and documents; on that basis the claimants failed to establish the required 'serious possibility' of persecution under s.96 or on a balance of probabilities a risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97.
Court Disposition
Claimants' refugee protection claims rejected.
Orders
- Refugee protection claims of both applicants are rejected.
- Rejection of principal claimant's claim applies to spouse whose claim was based on his claim; no separation of files was made.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment