TB1-20413

TB1-20413

The panel found pervasive inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities in the claimant's PIF and oral testimony (including contradictory accounts of abuse, unexplained discrepancies about passport/visa acquisition, failure to seek protection in the United States), gave little weight to the psychological report, drew negative inferences where appropriate, and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was not credible and therefore did not establish he or his dependants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB1-20413
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXX XXX; Minor Child: XXXXX XXXX XX; Minor Child: XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 & S.97(1)) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division Hearing and Reasons)
Outcome
claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Risk of Persecution, Section 97 Risk of Harm, Country Conditions, Kurdish Minority, Alevi Religion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Risk of Persecution Section 97 Risk of Harm Country Conditions +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXX XXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXX XX

Minor Child

XXXXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 & S.97(1)) / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division Hearing and Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of claimant's testimony and documentary consistency
  2. 2 establishment of Kurdish and Alevi identity
  3. 3 whether claimant meets Convention refugee definition

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found pervasive inconsistencies, omissions and implausibilities in the claimant's PIF and oral testimony (including contradictory accounts of abuse, unexplained discrepancies about passport/visa acquisition, failure to seek protection in the United States), gave little weight to the psychological report, drew negative inferences where appropriate, and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was not credible and therefore did not establish he or his dependants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

claims rejected

Orders

  • The claims of the principal claimant, his spouse and their minor children are rejected; they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.