AA5-00312

AA5-00312

The panel rejected the claimant's evidence as not credible due to multiple significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in his PIF and testimony, gave no weight to the attorney affidavit, and held that his failure to seek protection while resident in the United States further undermined his claim; accordingly he failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a need for protection under s.97(1).

Citation
AA5-00312
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Jacques Depatis; Refugee Protection Officer: Pierre Dorais; Panel Chair: William M. Davis
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Illegal Entry/sojourning, Failure to Claim Protection in Transit Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Illegal Entry/sojourning Failure to Claim Protection in Transit Country

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Jacques Depatis

Claimant's Counsel

Pierre Dorais

Refugee Protection Officer

William M. Davis

Panel Chair

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

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(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony is credible and supports a well‑founded fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's evidence as not credible due to multiple significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in his PIF and testimony, gave no weight to the attorney affidavit, and held that his failure to seek protection while resident in the United States further undermined his claim; accordingly he failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a need for protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim denied and protection claim dismissed