TB2-09342

TB2-09342

Because the claimants made no serious effort to seek asylum in the United States despite opportunity, the panel drew an adverse inference on subjective fear and credibility and, combined with lack of individualized risk based on country evidence and the claimants' factual circumstances, concluded on a balance of probabilities they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA.

Citation
TB2-09342
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (co Claimant): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / RPD Hearing and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Failure to Claim Elsewhere, Subjective Fear, Risk Assessment Under S.97
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Failure to Claim Elsewhere Subjective Fear +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (co Claimant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / RPD Hearing and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Claimants' identity and nationality
  2. 2 Credibility of testimony
  3. 3 Whether claimants had subjective fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimants made no serious effort to seek asylum in the United States despite opportunity, the panel drew an adverse inference on subjective fear and credibility and, combined with lack of individualized risk based on country evidence and the claimants' factual circumstances, concluded on a balance of probabilities they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims dismissed: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act