TB0-17759

TB0-17759

The claim fails because the claimant's testimony lacked sufficient credibility and objective corroboration, the incidents of harm were isolated and not shown to be persistent or systematic (thus not persecution), delay and repeated returns to Turkey undermined subjective fear, and country documentation did not establish a real risk of persecution, torture, or risk to life on return.

Citation
TB0-17759
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.AXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Religious Persecution, Political Opinion, Delay in Departure / Re‑availment, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Religious Persecution Political Opinion +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.AXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's testimony is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the claimant's testimony lacked sufficient credibility and objective corroboration, the incidents of harm were isolated and not shown to be persistent or systematic (thus not persecution), delay and repeated returns to Turkey undermined subjective fear, and country documentation did not establish a real risk of persecution, torture, or risk to life on return.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.