TA9-05173

TA9-05173

The panel rejected the claims because it found the claimant generally lacking in credibility, concluded the material allegations were fabricated or unproven, and held there was no credible evidence of persecution or a real risk of serious harm or state collusion such that the claimants do not qualify under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA (subsection 107(2) applied).

Citation
TA9-05173
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision Following RPD Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Victim of Criminality, Gang Harassment, Unrepresented Claimant, Postponement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Victim of Criminality +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Co Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision Following RPD Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because it found the claimant generally lacking in credibility, concluded the material allegations were fabricated or unproven, and held there was no credible evidence of persecution or a real risk of serious harm or state collusion such that the claimants do not qualify under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA (subsection 107(2) applied).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division decision dated March 2, 2010 rejects the claims pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
  • Claims of derivative family members rejected as they are linked to principal claimant