MA5-01016

MA5-01016

The Member found the claimant not credible because the seizure of blank lawyer and doctor letterheads sent by the claimant's husband demonstrated an intent to fabricate supporting evidence; accordingly the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that she would face risks meeting s.97(1), and the claim was rejected.

Citation
MA5-01016
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: Praida Naylor; Minister's Counsel: Ewa Staszewicz; Presiding Member: William M. Davis; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (de Novo Hearing; Continuation Adjourned; Decision Rendered)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, False/forged Documentation, Mail Seizure/notice of Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment False/forged Documentation Mail Seizure/notice of Intervention

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Praida Naylor

Designated Representative

Ewa Staszewicz

Minister's Counsel

William M. Davis

Presiding Member

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (de Novo Hearing; Continuation Adjourned; Decision Rendered)

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 evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The Member found the claimant not credible because the seizure of blank lawyer and doctor letterheads sent by the claimant's husband demonstrated an intent to fabricate supporting evidence; accordingly the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or that she would face risks meeting s.97(1), and the claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected — not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.