TB5-02178

TB5-02178

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimant not credible: material inconsistencies and omissions in his BOC and testimony, contradictory social media evidence during the alleged detention period, implausible explanations for delay in claiming after PGWP expiry, and lack of corroboration for political activity or family persecution meant there was no credible basis for refugee protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA; therefore the claim was rejected.

Citation
TB5-02178
Parties
Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX); Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision on Credibility (rpd Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Sur Place (refugee Sur Place), Convention Refugee Determination, Ministerial Intervention, Delay in Claiming
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Sur Place (refugee Sur Place) Convention Refugee Determination Ministerial Intervention Delay in Claiming

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX)

Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision on Credibility (rpd Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible on identity, alleged detentions and political activity
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's overseas and Canadian political activities could give rise to a sur place claim

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimant not credible: material inconsistencies and omissions in his BOC and testimony, contradictory social media evidence during the alleged detention period, implausible explanations for delay in claiming after PGWP expiry, and lack of corroboration for political activity or family persecution meant there was no credible basis for refugee protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA; therefore the claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA