MB6-00933

MB6-00933

The panel rejected the claim because core facts underpinning the risk claim (existence of the first marriage and son, and the alleged pregnancy) were not credible due to material contradictions in testimony and significant documentary irregularities (photocopied seal, inconsistent dates, late-produced documents); without those core facts the panel found no serious possibility of persecution or on-balance risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return.

Citation
MB6-00933
Parties
Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97 / Decision Following Hearings (april 29, 2016; January 30, 2018)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Forced Marriage, Document Authenticity, Medical Evidence (pseudocyesis)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Related Persecution Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Forced Marriage +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97 / Decision Following Hearings (april 29, 2016; January 30, 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant was subject to forced widow inheritance / forced marriage by late husband's family
  2. 2 Whether claimant established existence of first marriage and child
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence (birth certificates, birth record, ultrasound, medical letters) is authentic and probative

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because core facts underpinning the risk claim (existence of the first marriage and son, and the alleged pregnancy) were not credible due to material contradictions in testimony and significant documentary irregularities (photocopied seal, inconsistent dates, late-produced documents); without those core facts the panel found no serious possibility of persecution or on-balance risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected