MA7-07333

MA7-07333

The claim is rejected because multiple major contradictions, significant omissions and implausible assertions in the claimant's testimony and PIF fatally undermined his credibility, leaving no probative basis for the documentary evidence and no credible finding that state protection was unavailable, so the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA7-07333
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Danielle Arpin; Tribunal Member: Me Michel Byczak; Minister's Counsel: Valérie Choinière; Designated Representative: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision (oral Reasons)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Refusal of Claim, Threats and Persecution, Personal Information Form (pif) Amendments
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility State Protection Refusal of Claim Threats and Persecution Personal Information Form (pif) Amendments

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Danielle Arpin

Claimant's Counsel

Me Michel Byczak

Tribunal Member

Valérie Choinière

Minister's Counsel

N/A

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision (oral Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of the claimant's testimony and PIF
  2. 2 Availability and adequacy of state protection in Mexico
  3. 3 Probative value of documentary evidence in light of credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because multiple major contradictions, significant omissions and implausible assertions in the claimant's testimony and PIF fatally undermined his credibility, leaving no probative basis for the documentary evidence and no credible finding that state protection was unavailable, so the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
  • Panel finds no credible basis for the claim