TA6-06123

TA6-06123

The panel rejected the claims because the male claimant's lack of subjective fear and adverse credibility findings (demonstrated by multiple voluntary returns and implausible extortion account) and the female claimant's claim was negated by changed country conditions (paramilitary demobilization) and the passage of time; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and the compelling‑reasons exception does not apply.

Citation
TA6-06123
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Re‑availment / Change of Country Conditions, Gender Related Persecution, Extortion / Paramilitary Violence, Compelling Reasons Exception
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Country Conditions Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment +4 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant narratives given repeated returns to country of origin
  3. 3 Whether changed country conditions (paramilitary demobilization) negate objective risk

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the male claimant's lack of subjective fear and adverse credibility findings (demonstrated by multiple voluntary returns and implausible extortion account) and the female claimant's claim was negated by changed country conditions (paramilitary demobilization) and the passage of time; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return, and the compelling‑reasons exception does not apply.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division determines that XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are neither Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA nor persons in need of protection pursuant to subsection 97(1); claims are rejected.