TB9-02400

TB9-02400

Because the claimants' testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by their travel history and documentary record, and because material allegations (detention, attack, kidnapping attempt) lacked corroboration or follow‑up, the panel found they failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of torture or cruel treatment; therefore the refugee claims were rejected.

Citation
TB9-02400
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amro Hayek; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A; Adjudicator: P. GUELLER
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Imputed Political Opinion, Credibility Assessment, Persecution Risk, State Protection, Gender‑related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Imputed Political Opinion Credibility Assessment Persecution Risk State Protection +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Amro Hayek

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

P. GUELLER

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established a well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimants were imputed as Muslim Brotherhood supporters and at risk from state persecution
  3. 3 Whether claimants faced a real risk from a private actor (cousin) and risk to minors

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimants' testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by their travel history and documentary record, and because material allegations (detention, attack, kidnapping attempt) lacked corroboration or follow‑up, the panel found they failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground or a balance‑of‑probabilities risk of torture or cruel treatment; therefore the refugee claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the principal claimant, associate claimant and two minor daughters are rejected (decision dated November 21, 2019 by P. Gueller)