TA9-18070

TA9-18070

Because the claimants' testimony contained significant inconsistencies, omissions, and embellishments, lacked corroborative evidence for material elements (relationship, contemporaneous medical or police records, travel, NGO work), and demonstrated implausible behaviour, the panel drew negative credibility inferences and found no well-founded fear or need for protection under IRPA.

Citation
TA9-18070
Parties
Primary Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Co Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Determination (refusal)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection/exhaustion, Well Founded Fear, Persecution, Kidnapping, Police Corruption, PTSD, Corroboration and Omissions
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Employment Corruption Gender Based Violence Medical Evidence Credibility State Protection/exhaustion +6 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Primary Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX)

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Determination (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Mexico was available and effectively sought/exhausted
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection (risk to life/cruel treatment/torture)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimants' testimony contained significant inconsistencies, omissions, and embellishments, lacked corroborative evidence for material elements (relationship, contemporaneous medical or police records, travel, NGO work), and demonstrated implausible behaviour, the panel drew negative credibility inferences and found no well-founded fear or need for protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims TA9-18070 and TA9-18071 are rejected.