MA5-06359

MA5-06359

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated, documentary evidence did not support assertions of religiously or politically motivated persecution, and therefore there was no serious possibility that he would be persecuted, tortured, or have his life threatened if returned to India.

Citation
MA5-06359
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jean-François Bertrand; Refugee Protection Officer: Cristian Jadue; Panel Member: Me Alain Bissonnette
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Religious Belief, Political Opinion, Torture, Persecution, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Human Rights Law Credibility Religious Belief Political Opinion Torture Persecution +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Jean-François Bertrand

Claimant's Counsel

Cristian Jadue

Refugee Protection Officer

Me Alain Bissonnette

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the claimant faces a real risk of torture on return

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated, documentary evidence did not support assertions of religiously or politically motivated persecution, and therefore there was no serious possibility that he would be persecuted, tortured, or have his life threatened if returned to India.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Refusal of claim under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act