TB0-12969

TB0-12969

The Panel rejected the claims principally on credibility grounds: the claimant deliberately concealed multiple returns to Bangladesh, gave inconsistent explanations, failed to report allegations to police, and undertook travel inconsistent with a genuine subjective fear; alternatively, on the balance of probabilities adequate state protection would have been available; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TB0-12969
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse (female Claimant): XXXX XXXX; Child (minor): XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimants: Matthew Jeffery; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Re Availment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Re Availment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection

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

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse (female Claimant)

XXXX XXXX

Child (minor)

Matthew Jeffery

Counsel for Claimants

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's credibility defeats the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claims principally on credibility grounds: the claimant deliberately concealed multiple returns to Bangladesh, gave inconsistent explanations, failed to report allegations to police, and undertook travel inconsistent with a genuine subjective fear; alternatively, on the balance of probabilities adequate state protection would have been available; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected (decision dated June 18, 2012)