MA4-07536

MA4-07536

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible on fundamental matters (identity, dates, residence history, route and means of travel, and failure to produce corroborating documents), and therefore the claimant failed to meet the burden to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk under s.97/CAT.

Citation
MA4-07536
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Leonard Manzararu; Panel Member: Me Michel Jobin; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Safe Third Country, Identity Documents, Persecution, Torture, Harassment, Ethnic Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Safe Third Country Identity Documents +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Leonard Manzararu

Claimant's Counsel

Me Michel Jobin

Panel Member

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA and CAT Article 1
  3. 3 Credibility assessment and contradictions in identity and travel history

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible on fundamental matters (identity, dates, residence history, route and means of travel, and failure to produce corroborating documents), and therefore the claimant failed to meet the burden to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk under s.97/CAT.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected
  • Claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA