TA9-17627

TA9-17627

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible and inadequately corroborated, found her failure to seek asylum in France and other conduct (timing of travel, allowing child to travel to Ethiopia) inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution, and concluded independent country information did not establish a real risk; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk of torture or serious harm under s.97(1).

Citation
TA9-17627
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimant and dependants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Credibility Assessment, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country (france), Corroboration and Production of Documents, Political Opposition
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Credibility Assessment Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country (france) Corroboration and Production of Documents +1 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA including risk of torture under CAT
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible and inadequately corroborated, found her failure to seek asylum in France and other conduct (timing of travel, allowing child to travel to Ethiopia) inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution, and concluded independent country information did not establish a real risk; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk of torture or serious harm under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimant and dependants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims for file numbers TA9-17627, TA9-17677 and TA9-17678 are dismissed
  • Reasons and decision issued February 4, 2011 by L. Mason