TB2-12523

TB2-12523

The panel rejected the claimants' allegations as not credible and insufficient to rebut the presumption of state protection; objective country documents and expert correspondence demonstrated that Maoist/YCL threats, extortion and issuance of threat letters declined after 2006 and that forgeries are common, undermining the personal documents; therefore the claimants failed to establish a reasonable chance of persecution or lack of state protection and are neither Convention Refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB2-12523
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing — Oral Negative Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention Refugees and not to be persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Country Condition Evidence, Well‑founded Fear
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Credibility Assessment Country Condition Evidence Well‑founded Fear

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing — Oral Negative Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention Refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97
  3. 3 Credibility of the male claimant's account and supporting documents

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' allegations as not credible and insufficient to rebut the presumption of state protection; objective country documents and expert correspondence demonstrated that Maoist/YCL threats, extortion and issuance of threat letters declined after 2006 and that forgeries are common, undermining the personal documents; therefore the claimants failed to establish a reasonable chance of persecution or lack of state protection and are neither Convention Refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention Refugees and not to be persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim denied