VB5-02613

VB5-02613

The claimants' allegations are not credible on a balance of probabilities due to material inconsistencies, significant omissions (including absence of car emblem detail linking attacks to her employment), implausible explanations for omissions, and misrepresentation or failure to seek available state protection; the sexual harassment alleged amounted to discrimination not persecution and the cumulative incidents do not establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk under s.97(1); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1).

Citation
VB5-02613
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Determination (hearing and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Section 97(1) Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Section 97(1) Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection Gender Related Persecution

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimants

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Determination (hearing and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' allegations are not credible on a balance of probabilities due to material inconsistencies, significant omissions (including absence of car emblem detail linking attacks to her employment), implausible explanations for omissions, and misrepresentation or failure to seek available state protection; the sexual harassment alleged amounted to discrimination not persecution and the cumulative incidents do not establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk under s.97(1); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.