MB2-01196

MB2-01196

The claim was rejected because the tribunal found the claimant not credible due to major contradictions in dates and facts, implausible conduct (including lengthy unexplained delay and failure to claim in a transit country), and unreliable documentary evidence without originals; on that basis the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear or risk required by ss.96/97 IRPA.

Citation
MB2-01196
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Tony Manglaviti; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Me Jean-Guy Jam
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision at RPD
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Delay in Claiming Asylum, Failure to Claim in Transit Country, Documentary Evidence Weight
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Delay in Claiming Asylum Failure to Claim in Transit Country +1 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Tony Manglaviti

Claimant's Counsel

Me Jean-Guy Jam

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision at RPD

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the tribunal found the claimant not credible due to major contradictions in dates and facts, implausible conduct (including lengthy unexplained delay and failure to claim in a transit country), and unreliable documentary evidence without originals; on that basis the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear or risk required by ss.96/97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected.