MB0-06857

MB0-06857

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's core allegations were not credible due to multiple contradictions, late and inconsistent narratives, lack of corroborative evidence for reports, threats and the alleged rape, implausible explanations of how she was identified, and timing of psychological evidence; consequently she failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a s.97(1) risk.

Citation
MB0-06857
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Panel Member / Tribunal: Renée Bourque; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration (no counsel present)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refused — refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Findings, Gender‑based Violence, Psychological Evidence, Compelling Reasons Exception
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Findings Gender‑based Violence Psychological Evidence +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Renée Bourque

Panel Member / Tribunal

Minister of Immigration (no counsel present)

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Final Hearing and Decision

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 Whether claimant established a well‑founded fear of persecution on imputed political opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's core allegations were not credible due to multiple contradictions, late and inconsistent narratives, lack of corroborative evidence for reports, threats and the alleged rape, implausible explanations of how she was identified, and timing of psychological evidence; consequently she failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a s.97(1) risk.

Court Disposition

Refused — refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected
  • No protection granted under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of IRPA