MA1-00534

MA1-00534

The claimant's inconsistent identities, use of an altered passport, misleading conduct on arrival, and production of non‑probative or potentially forged identity documents destroyed his credibility; because identity and credibility were not established, the Tribunal rejected his account of persecution and found he did not meet the statutory definitions of a Convention refugee (s.96) or person in need of protection (s.97(1)).

Citation
MA1-00534
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXX); Claimant's Counsel: Me Tony Manglaviti; Refugee Protection Officer: Me Jeffrey Nadler; Designated Representative: Patricia Nobl; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim denied; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Identity, Political Opinion, Persecution, Documentary Evidence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Identity Political Opinion Persecution Documentary Evidence +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

Me Tony Manglaviti

Claimant's Counsel

Me Jeffrey Nadler

Refugee Protection Officer

Patricia Nobl

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has established identity and therefore credibility
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence provided is authentic and probative

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's inconsistent identities, use of an altered passport, misleading conduct on arrival, and production of non‑probative or potentially forged identity documents destroyed his credibility; because identity and credibility were not established, the Tribunal rejected his account of persecution and found he did not meet the statutory definitions of a Convention refugee (s.96) or person in need of protection (s.97(1)).

Court Disposition

Claim denied; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; no protections under s.96 or s.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.