TA9-02836

TA9-02836

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's evidence was found not credible due to significant and unexplained inconsistencies (notably discrepancies between the PIF narrative and Port of Entry notes and contradictions at hearing, including admission of signing an inaccurate form), and on that basis the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear under s.96 or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk under s.97; minor claimants' claims were dismissed as they are US citizens and no claim was made against the USA.

Citation
TA9-02836
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection — IRPA Sections 96 and 97 (stateless Person) / Decision (reasons and Decision Dated June 23, 2011)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97; minor claimants' claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status (s.96), Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Credibility Assessment, Family‑based Persecution, Religion and Conversion, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Statelessness Convention Refugee Status (s.96) Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Credibility Assessment Family‑based Persecution Religion and Conversion Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection — IRPA Sections 96 and 97 (stateless Person) / Decision (reasons and Decision Dated June 23, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of claimant's evidence and documentary inconsistencies

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's evidence was found not credible due to significant and unexplained inconsistencies (notably discrepancies between the PIF narrative and Port of Entry notes and contradictions at hearing, including admission of signing an inaccurate form), and on that basis the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear under s.96 or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk under s.97; minor claimants' claims were dismissed as they are US citizens and no claim was made against the USA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97; minor claimants' claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed (no protection granted)
  • Claims rejected with respect to all claimants