MB1-01552

MB1-01552

The panel found the claimant not credible and his allegations uncorroborated, identified material inconsistencies and implausibilities (contradictory timeline, late-added incidents, improbable arrival itinerary), and noted country evidence and facts (non-mandatory military service, arrest of alleged perpetrator, president of same ethnic group) that undermined the risk; therefore claimant failed to discharge the burden to prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life/cruel treatment or torture and the claim was rejected under s.96 and s.97 IRPA and Article 1 CAT.

Citation
MB1-01552
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Well Founded Fear, Particular Social Group, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Human Rights Law Convention Against Torture Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Well Founded Fear Particular Social Group +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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a real risk of torture under Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant not credible and his allegations uncorroborated, identified material inconsistencies and implausibilities (contradictory timeline, late-added incidents, improbable arrival itinerary), and noted country evidence and facts (non-mandatory military service, arrest of alleged perpetrator, president of same ethnic group) that undermined the risk; therefore claimant failed to discharge the burden to prove a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life/cruel treatment or torture and the claim was rejected under s.96 and s.97 IRPA and Article 1 CAT.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA