TA7-15159

TA7-15159

The claim was rejected because alleged vengeance does not engage a Convention ground under s.96, and on the merits the claimant's evidence was found not credible (failure to report to Consulate or police, absence of corroboration, and departure motivated by a US visa/joining husband), so the claimant failed to establish she is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b).

Citation
TA7-15159
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk to Life or Cruel or Unusual Treatment (s.97(1)(b)), Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Determination Risk to Life or Cruel or Unusual Treatment (s.97(1)(b)) Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because alleged vengeance does not engage a Convention ground under s.96, and on the merits the claimant's evidence was found not credible (failure to report to Consulate or police, absence of corroboration, and departure motivated by a US visa/joining husband), so the claimant failed to establish she is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a person in need of protection.