MA5-03284

MA5-03284

Because the claimant's testimony was found to be materially inconsistent, uncorroborated and speculative, and country conditions did not establish a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment, the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or entitlement to protection under s.96 or s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA5-03284
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Gordon Wiseman; Refugee Protection Officer: Patricia Nobl; Panel/decision Maker: Farid Osmane
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility and Inconsistency, Risk of Torture, Risk to Life, Non State Actor Violence (ltte/karuna), Arrest and Detention
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law International Human Rights Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Credibility and Inconsistency Risk of Torture Risk to Life Non State Actor Violence (ltte/karuna) +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Gordon Wiseman

Claimant's Counsel

Patricia Nobl

Refugee Protection Officer

Farid Osmane

Panel/decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Merits Hearing

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
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony is credible and sufficiently corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant's testimony was found to be materially inconsistent, uncorroborated and speculative, and country conditions did not establish a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment, the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or entitlement to protection under s.96 or s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection