MB9-14199

MB9-14199

The panel rejected the refugee claims because the claimants failed to meet the required standard: their allegations were undermined by material inconsistencies and omissions between their Basis of Claim forms and oral testimony (notably the 2016 assault and the account of staying in Bejaïa), unjustified delays in leaving Algeria despite earlier visas, and delay and lack of effort to seek protection after arrival in Canada; consequently they did not establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a balance of probabilities risk of torture, death or cruel treatment.

Citation
MB9-14199
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant (husband): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (designated Representative: Principal Claimant): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (s.96 and S.97 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Credibility Findings, Gender Related Persecution, Delay and Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Credibility Findings Gender Related Persecution Delay and Omissions

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant (husband)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (designated Representative: Principal Claimant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (s.96 and S.97 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground (particular social group: women; family)
  2. 2 Whether claimants would, on balance of probabilities, face torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether claimants' evidence is credible given inconsistencies, omissions and delays

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee claims because the claimants failed to meet the required standard: their allegations were undermined by material inconsistencies and omissions between their Basis of Claim forms and oral testimony (notably the 2016 assault and the account of staying in Bejaïa), unjustified delays in leaving Algeria despite earlier visas, and delay and lack of effort to seek protection after arrival in Canada; consequently they did not establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a balance of probabilities risk of torture, death or cruel treatment.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims rejected