TB1-08177

TB1-08177

On the balance of probabilities the principal claimant's credibility was undermined by material omissions and unexplained inconsistencies (including failure to corroborate asserted legal advice and amended narrative), her failure to seek asylum in the United States—a safe Convention country—supports a finding of lack of subjective fear, there is no persuasive evidence of ongoing threats or objective risk, and therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-08177
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1) Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Safe Third Country/asylum in the United States
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1) Irpa) Credibility Assessment Gender Related Persecution Safe Third Country/asylum in the United States

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant is credible

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the principal claimant's credibility was undermined by material omissions and unexplained inconsistencies (including failure to corroborate asserted legal advice and amended narrative), her failure to seek asylum in the United States—a safe Convention country—supports a finding of lack of subjective fear, there is no persuasive evidence of ongoing threats or objective risk, and therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the principal claimant's claim for refugee protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the minor claimants' claims for refugee protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA