MB7-04668

MB7-04668

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants' testimony contained significant inconsistencies, late and uncorroborated evidence undermining credibility, and they failed to establish a nexus between the harm suffered and a Convention ground; their conduct in the US also undermined the claim that they sought protection, therefore no serious possibility of persecution was established.

Citation
MB7-04668
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): Anita Martinez; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Credibility Assessment, Political Opinion, Persecution, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Credibility Assessment Political Opinion Persecution Internal Flight Alternative

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

Anita Martinez

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' evidence is credible and consistent
  3. 3 Whether the harm alleged amounts to persecution linked to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants' testimony contained significant inconsistencies, late and uncorroborated evidence undermining credibility, and they failed to establish a nexus between the harm suffered and a Convention ground; their conduct in the US also undermined the claim that they sought protection, therefore no serious possibility of persecution was established.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed