TB1-12810

TB1-12810

On a balance of probabilities the claimant's testimony and PIF were not credible or consistent, and she failed to establish a subjective fear that is objectively well founded; corroborative and country evidence undermined her allegations (including implausibility of undetected exit while allegedly wanted by PSB and failure to seek asylum in the US); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TB1-12810
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim denied; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Need for Protection, Credibility Assessment, Claiming Elsewhere/third Country, State Protection/psb Procedures
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Need for Protection Credibility Assessment Claiming Elsewhere/third Country State Protection/psb Procedures

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a personal risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Credibility and consistency of claimant's PIF and oral testimony

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities the claimant's testimony and PIF were not credible or consistent, and she failed to establish a subjective fear that is objectively well founded; corroborative and country evidence undermined her allegations (including implausibility of undetected exit while allegedly wanted by PSB and failure to seek asylum in the US); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim denied; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim denied
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA