MA5-04428

MA5-04428

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant's testimony not credible due to material omissions and contradictions, corroborating documents that contradicted her account, and invented allegations; consequently she failed to satisfy the legal standards under s.96 (serious possibility of persecution) and s.97 (more probable than not risk) of the IRPA.

Citation
MA5-04428
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Stéphanie Valois; Refugee Protection Officer: Jocelyne Sénécal; Designated Representative: XXXXX - XXXXX; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96,97) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility and Evidence Omissions, Persecution for Refusal to Marry, Sexual Violence and Forced Drugging, Allegations of Involvement in Drug Trafficking, Standard of Proof Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97, Country Risk Cambodia
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Human Rights (convention Against Torture) Credibility and Evidence Omissions Persecution for Refusal to Marry Sexual Violence and Forced Drugging Allegations of Involvement in Drug Trafficking Standard of Proof Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97 +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Stéphanie Valois

Claimant's Counsel

Jocelyne Sénécal

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX - XXXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96,97) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a risk of torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97
  3. 3 Credibility assessment in light of omissions, contradictions and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant's testimony not credible due to material omissions and contradictions, corroborating documents that contradicted her account, and invented allegations; consequently she failed to satisfy the legal standards under s.96 (serious possibility of persecution) and s.97 (more probable than not risk) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division; no protection granted