TB1-10505

TB1-10505

Because the principal claimant provided no reasonable explanation for significant omissions in his written statements, the panel found him not credible on key facts and concluded there was no subjective or objective basis for fear of persecution in Croatia; consequently the claimants failed to establish refugee protection or need for protection and the claims were dismissed.

Citation
TB1-10505
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Co Claimant: XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision Merits Hearing Concluded
Outcome
Claims dismissed; both claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Risk Assessment, Second Country of Nationality, Omissions From Pif/poe
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Risk Assessment Second Country of Nationality Omissions From Pif/poe

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision Merits Hearing Concluded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Credibility of the principal claimant due to omissions in his written materials
  3. 3 Whether there is a well-founded fear of persecution in Croatia (first country of nationality)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the principal claimant provided no reasonable explanation for significant omissions in his written statements, the panel found him not credible on key facts and concluded there was no subjective or objective basis for fear of persecution in Croatia; consequently the claimants failed to establish refugee protection or need for protection and the claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; both claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division dismisses the claim of the principal claimant
  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim of the co-claimant