TB0-12341

TB0-12341

Claim rejected because, on the balance of probabilities, the male claimant's testimony lacked credibility, his actions were routine government duties and did not establish a nexus to persecution, there was no evidence of past targeted persecution, and his planned visa travel and delay in leaving undermined a genuine risk of persecution on return.

Citation
TB0-12341
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX (male claimant); Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX (female claimant, spouse)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing Concluded; Reasons and Final Decision Issued
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Protection Eligibility Under S.96 and S.97(1), Credibility Assessment, Persecution for Government Employment Duties, Visa and Delay in Departing Country, Allegations of Fraud/misappropriation Denunciation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Protection Eligibility Under S.96 and S.97(1) Credibility Assessment Persecution for Government Employment Duties +2 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX (male claimant)

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX (female claimant, spouse)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing Concluded; Reasons and Final Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the male claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

Claim rejected because, on the balance of probabilities, the male claimant's testimony lacked credibility, his actions were routine government duties and did not establish a nexus to persecution, there was no evidence of past targeted persecution, and his planned visa travel and delay in leaving undermined a genuine risk of persecution on return.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1).

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed; no protection granted