TB1-17410

TB1-17410

The Panel rejected the claimants' s.96 and s.97 claims because the evidence was not credible or adequately corroborated, material inconsistencies and omissions undermined subjective fear (including male claimant's re‑entry to Afghanistan), and the asserted risks (including generalized Taliban risk and forced marriage concerns) were not shown to create an individualized or serious risk on either the well‑founded fear test or the balance of probabilities standard.

Citation
TB1-17410
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Linda Hall; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Decision Panel: M. Sterlin
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Claim Under Section 97 IRPA, Credibility Assessment, Corroboration of Evidence, Country Condition Risk to Women
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Protection Claim Under Section 97 IRPA Credibility Assessment Corroboration of Evidence Country Condition Risk to Women

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Linda Hall

Counsel for Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

M. Sterlin

Decision Panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA (well‑founded fear on Convention grounds)
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA (risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on balance of probabilities)
  3. 3 Credibility and corroboration of claimant testimony and documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claimants' s.96 and s.97 claims because the evidence was not credible or adequately corroborated, material inconsistencies and omissions undermined subjective fear (including male claimant's re‑entry to Afghanistan), and the asserted risks (including generalized Taliban risk and forced marriage concerns) were not shown to create an individualized or serious risk on either the well‑founded fear test or the balance of probabilities standard.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed for all named claimants (decision dated September 12, 2013)