MA8-02620

MA8-02620

The panel found the claimant wholly not credible because of three materially inconsistent PIF versions, unexplained omissions and contradictory accounts of key events (kidnapping, rape, work as restavec), and thus concluded the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a balance of probabilities risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
MA8-02620
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX-XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Imputed Political Opinion, Gender Based Persecution, Restavek (domestic Servitude)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Imputed Political Opinion Gender Based Persecution +1 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX-XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection
  3. 3 Credibility and consistency of claimant's testimony and PIFs

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant wholly not credible because of three materially inconsistent PIF versions, unexplained omissions and contradictory accounts of key events (kidnapping, rape, work as restavec), and thus concluded the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a balance of probabilities risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim of XXXXX XXXXXX rejected
  • Claims of minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX-XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX-XXXX rejected