TB1-17385

TB1-17385

Claimants failed to prove an objective basis for their fear and did not provide credible, consistent evidence of targeting or ongoing risk; their conduct (multiple departures and returns, continued work and residence) and unreliable documentation undermined their claim, therefore they do not meet the tests of ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA and the claims are rejected.

Citation
TB1-17385
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX); Spouse (derivative Claimant): XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (AKAXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96, 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued May 2, 2013)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Persecution Credibility Assessment Risk of Torture +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (AKAXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Spouse (derivative Claimant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96, 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued May 2, 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is an objective basis for the claimed fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to prove an objective basis for their fear and did not provide credible, consistent evidence of targeting or ongoing risk; their conduct (multiple departures and returns, continued work and residence) and unreliable documentation undermined their claim, therefore they do not meet the tests of ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA and the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects these claims for refugee protection.