VB9-02966

VB9-02966

The claims are dismissed because the claimants' credibility is significantly undermined by inconsistencies and implausible explanations (notably about social media contacts and travel), and there is insufficient evidence of a serious possibility of persecution in Tunisia for the principal claimant or in Morocco for the associate claimant; the associate claimant was found to have Morocco as a country of former habitual residence and failed to prove he cannot return there, therefore neither claimant meets the tests under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
VB9-02966
Parties
Principal Claimant: Miss XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant: Mr. XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (hearing)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Habitual Residence, Credibility Assessment, Statelessness, Risk of Torture, Social Media Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Habitual Residence Credibility Assessment Statelessness +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

Mr. XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' testimony and explanations regarding social media

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are dismissed because the claimants' credibility is significantly undermined by inconsistencies and implausible explanations (notably about social media contacts and travel), and there is insufficient evidence of a serious possibility of persecution in Tunisia for the principal claimant or in Morocco for the associate claimant; the associate claimant was found to have Morocco as a country of former habitual residence and failed to prove he cannot return there, therefore neither claimant meets the tests under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the principal claimant and the associate claimant are denied; neither is found to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.