VB1-03749

VB1-03749

The Panel denied the claims because the claimants' central allegations were not credible: multiple material inconsistencies and omissions between PIFs, testimony and documents (dates, addresses, descriptions of assaults, omission of vandalism and employment loss) undermined their accounts; country evidence showed discrimination against Roma was plausible but, given the credibility findings, the claimants failed to establish persecution under s.96 or risk under s.97(1) and failed to prove lack of state protection.

Citation
VB1-03749
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX; Respondent / Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (oral Hearings Held June 6 and August 1, 2013; Decision September 19, 2013)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection denied
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)), Credibility Findings, State Protection, Child Testimony Accommodations, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)) Credibility Findings State Protection Child Testimony Accommodations +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXXX XXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Respondent / Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (oral Hearings Held June 6 and August 1, 2013; Decision September 19, 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimed events are credible and rise to level of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel denied the claims because the claimants' central allegations were not credible: multiple material inconsistencies and omissions between PIFs, testimony and documents (dates, addresses, descriptions of assaults, omission of vandalism and employment loss) undermined their accounts; country evidence showed discrimination against Roma was plausible but, given the credibility findings, the claimants failed to establish persecution under s.96 or risk under s.97(1) and failed to prove lack of state protection.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection denied

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX, XXXXX XXXX and XXXXX XXXXXX are dismissed