MA7-01785

MA7-01785

The claimants' refugee protection claims were rejected because the panel found them not credible due to material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in their narratives and testimony (notably regarding a ransom demand, identity and affiliation of attackers, and existence of a prosecution), their failure to produce documentary corroboration despite being given time to do so, and because objective evidence established generalized violence in Burundi rather than an individualized risk meeting sections 96 or 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA7-01785
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Secondary Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Child Claimant, Gender Based Persecution, Production of Documents, Country Conditions, Ethnic Persecution, Burundi
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Child Claimant Gender Based Persecution +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Secondary Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' testimony and narratives

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' refugee protection claims were rejected because the panel found them not credible due to material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in their narratives and testimony (notably regarding a ransom demand, identity and affiliation of attackers, and existence of a prosecution), their failure to produce documentary corroboration despite being given time to do so, and because objective evidence established generalized violence in Burundi rather than an individualized risk meeting sections 96 or 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX are denied
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA