TA5-13125

TA5-13125

Because the principal claimant's central allegations were undermined by significant, unexplained omissions from her PIF, implausible explanations for those omissions, and failure to provide or attempt to obtain documentary proof of MDC membership, the panel found her testimony lacked credibility on core elements and concluded there was not a serious possibility of persecution nor a risk under s.97 IRPA; the claims were rejected.

Citation
TA5-13125
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Section 97 Irpa) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Political Opinion, Particular Social Group, Section 97 IRPA, Section 106 IRPA, RPD Rules Rule 7, Omissions From PIF, Documentary Evidence, Designated Representative
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Convention Refugee Political Opinion Particular Social Group Section 97 IRPA Section 106 IRPA +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Section 97 Irpa) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees on political opinion grounds
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the principal claimant and impact of omissions from the PIF

Ratio Decidendi

Because the principal claimant's central allegations were undermined by significant, unexplained omissions from her PIF, implausible explanations for those omissions, and failure to provide or attempt to obtain documentary proof of MDC membership, the panel found her testimony lacked credibility on core elements and concluded there was not a serious possibility of persecution nor a risk under s.97 IRPA; the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed: claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • RPD rejects the refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX.