MA5-05699

MA5-05699

The tribunal rejected the claimant's testimony about his travel and residence as not credible due to inconsistent and implausible flight details and lack of corroborating documents; because the claimant failed to establish that he came directly from Sri Lanka and failed to produce credible evidence of risk, he did not meet the tests in sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the claim was rejected.

Citation
MA5-05699
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: Barbara Berger
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Forced Conscription, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Travel Documents
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Forced Conscription Arbitrary Arrest and Detention +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Barbara Berger

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's travel history and residence history are credible and sufficiently corroborated
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a real risk from LTTE, army, police or Karuna group if returned

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal rejected the claimant's testimony about his travel and residence as not credible due to inconsistent and implausible flight details and lack of corroborating documents; because the claimant failed to establish that he came directly from Sri Lanka and failed to produce credible evidence of risk, he did not meet the tests in sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claim is rejected.