AA1-00611

AA1-00611

The panel rejected the claim because multiple material inconsistencies between the Personal Information Form and Port of Entry notes, contradictions and implausibilities in oral testimony, and adverse documentary evidence (Portuguese embassy response and problems with the death certificate and travel documentation) rendered the claimant not credible and therefore he failed to prove on the required standard that he faces a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of torture or death on return.

Citation
AA1-00611
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Russell L. Kaplan; Refugee Protection Officer: Kerry Murphy; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A; Panel: Eunice Harker
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claimant's refugee protection claim dismissed; not a Convention refugee; not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Documentary Evidence, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture, Imputed Political Opinion, Particular Social Group, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Documentary Evidence Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Torture Imputed Political Opinion +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Russell L. Kaplan

Claimant's Counsel

Kerry Murphy

Refugee Protection Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Eunice Harker

Panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has well-founded fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion or membership in a particular social group
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or death on return
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence and documents are credible and sufficient to meet the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because multiple material inconsistencies between the Personal Information Form and Port of Entry notes, contradictions and implausibilities in oral testimony, and adverse documentary evidence (Portuguese embassy response and problems with the death certificate and travel documentation) rendered the claimant not credible and therefore he failed to prove on the required standard that he faces a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of torture or death on return.

Court Disposition

Claimant's refugee protection claim dismissed; not a Convention refugee; not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claimant is not a Convention refugee
  • Claimant is not a person in need of protection