MA9-08957

MA9-08957

The claimants' core allegations were not credibly established and lacked corroboration; material contradictions and late additions to the claim undermined credibility; the alleged harm related to criminality without established nexus to a Convention ground; accordingly the panel rejected claims under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA9-08957
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse / Co Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision on Eligibility After Hearing
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Extortion, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Section 97 IRPA (persons in Need of Protection), Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugee), Corroboration, Negative Inference, Amendments to PIF
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Extortion Nexus to Convention Grounds Section 97 IRPA (persons in Need of Protection) Section 96 IRPA (convention Refugee) +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse / Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision on Eligibility After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the alleged harms are linked to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' core allegations were not credibly established and lacked corroboration; material contradictions and late additions to the claim undermined credibility; the alleged harm related to criminality without established nexus to a Convention ground; accordingly the panel rejected claims under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX are rejected