TA8-16403

TA8-16403

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claims because the claimants' evidence was tainted by significant omissions and vague/speculative testimony, they failed to seek available state protection, threats were from unknown sources and did not amount to persecution, and country evidence did not indicate a real risk of arrest or detention under the ISA for these claimants; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA8-16403
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Reasons and Decision (final Decision After Hearing)
Outcome
claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Credibility Findings, Ethnic Discrimination, Internal Security Act/mandatory Detention
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Credibility Findings Ethnic Discrimination Internal Security Act/mandatory Detention

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Reasons and Decision (final Decision After Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Credibility of oral testimony and PIF omissions
  3. 3 Whether state protection was reasonably sought or available

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claims because the claimants' evidence was tainted by significant omissions and vague/speculative testimony, they failed to seek available state protection, threats were from unknown sources and did not amount to persecution, and country evidence did not indicate a real risk of arrest or detention under the ISA for these claimants; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claims rejected; no protection granted