MA8-07436

MA8-07436

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants' testimony was not credible and their conduct (remaining in place after threats, inconsistent statements about police protection, unjustified delays in leaving and in claiming) made it implausible they faced a serious possibility of persecution or a balance of probabilities risk of torture or cruel treatment; therefore protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1) was not established.

Citation
MA8-07436
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Child Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Persecution, State Protection, Delay in Leaving Country, Delay in Making Claim, Death Threats, Corruption
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Employment Corruption Threats and Violence State Protection Credibility Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Child Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of witnesses
  2. 2 Whether claimants face persecution on Convention grounds
  3. 3 Whether claimants face risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants' testimony was not credible and their conduct (remaining in place after threats, inconsistent statements about police protection, unjustified delays in leaving and in claiming) made it implausible they faced a serious possibility of persecution or a balance of probabilities risk of torture or cruel treatment; therefore protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1) was not established.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected; negative determination under IRPA; no protection granted