VB6-01249

VB6-01249

The Tribunal rejected the claims because the claimants' credibility was undermined by multiple inconsistencies and implausibilities in testimony and surrounding facts, the documentary evidence lacked reliability and likely included fabricated newspapers, and on the totality of reliable evidence there was no established well-founded fear of persecution or personal risk on return to Bangladesh; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB6-01249
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Protection Claim, Credibility Assessment, Document Authenticity, State Protection, Risk of Persecution, Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Protection Claim Credibility Assessment Document Authenticity State Protection +2 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether claimants' testimony is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal rejected the claims because the claimants' credibility was undermined by multiple inconsistencies and implausibilities in testimony and surrounding facts, the documentary evidence lacked reliability and likely included fabricated newspapers, and on the totality of reliable evidence there was no established well-founded fear of persecution or personal risk on return to Bangladesh; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Protection claims dismissed