TA9-09087

TA9-09087

The Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimants' evidence was not credible because they proffered a police denunciation that contained an impossible filing date and time inconsistencies and lacked usual authenticity markings, omitted that denunciation from the PIF despite instructions to disclose such events, and submitted inconsistent or weak corroborative medical and support letters; therefore they failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk upon return and their refugee protection claims are rejected.

Citation
TA9-09087
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Female Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Fraudulent Documents, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Omissions in Personal Information Form, Corroboration of Evidence, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Evidence Authentication Credibility Fraudulent Documents State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Omissions in Personal Information Form +2 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX)

Female Claimant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimants' testimony and Personal Information Form
  2. 2 Authenticity of submitted police denunciation document
  3. 3 Availability of state protection and Internal Flight Alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimants' evidence was not credible because they proffered a police denunciation that contained an impossible filing date and time inconsistencies and lacked usual authenticity markings, omitted that denunciation from the PIF despite instructions to disclose such events, and submitted inconsistent or weak corroborative medical and support letters; therefore they failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk upon return and their refugee protection claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the principal claimant and the female claimant dated March 4, 2011