TA1-28122

TA1-28122

The panel accepted the French authorities' records identifying the claimant as having entered and been in France from 1996 to 1999; because the claimant therefore could not have been in the DRC during the alleged 1997–2001 incidents, and because his testimony and explanations (including contradictory accounts about his passport) were not credible or corroborated, the panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant failed to establish refugee status or protection risk and that there was no credible basis for the claim under s.107(2) IRPA.

Citation
TA1-28122
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: K. Khamsi; Presiding Member: Karin Michnick; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim and Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) / Decision (post Hearing)
Outcome
Claim dismissed — claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; no credible basis for the claim under s.107(2) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Identity Verification, No Credible Basis (s.107(2) Irpa), Persecution Risk, Torture Risk, Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Identity Verification No Credible Basis (s.107(2) Irpa) Persecution Risk +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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

K. Khamsi

Refugee Protection Officer

Karin Michnick

Presiding Member

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim and Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) / Decision (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is the same person as recorded by French authorities
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible
  3. 3 Whether the claimant established a well‑founded fear of persecution (Convention refugee)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the French authorities' records identifying the claimant as having entered and been in France from 1996 to 1999; because the claimant therefore could not have been in the DRC during the alleged 1997–2001 incidents, and because his testimony and explanations (including contradictory accounts about his passport) were not credible or corroborated, the panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant failed to establish refugee status or protection risk and that there was no credible basis for the claim under s.107(2) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed — claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; no credible basis for the claim under s.107(2) IRPA.