TB1-17934

TB1-17934

The claim is rejected because the claimant's evidence was overall not credible due to internal inconsistencies, unexplained omissions, lack of reliable corroboration and apparent fabricated documents, coupled with unjustified delay in departure; country documentation shows discrimination against Kurds/Alevis but not a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants' profile, therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB1-17934
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Female Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96/s.97) / Decision (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Claim Under S.97, Credibility Assessment, Corroboration Requirements, Delay in Departure, Country Condition Assessment (alevis/kurds)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Protection Claim Under S.97 Credibility Assessment Corroboration Requirements Delay in Departure +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX

Female Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96/s.97) / Decision (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's oral testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant's evidence was overall not credible due to internal inconsistencies, unexplained omissions, lack of reliable corroboration and apparent fabricated documents, coupled with unjustified delay in departure; country documentation shows discrimination against Kurds/Alevis but not a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants' profile, therefore they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; protection claim rejected as to all claimants