MA4-03880

MA4-03880

The tribunal rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was materially inconsistent, contradicted by his own earlier statements and documentary evidence, and supported documents (arrest warrant, psychological report, party letter) were unreliable or not probative; in combination with country evidence that did not establish a risk of persecution for Alevis or Kurds solely on those grounds, the claimant failed to meet the legal tests under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA and the claim must be dismissed.

Citation
MA4-03880
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Ronald Shacter; Refugee Protection Officer: Patricia Nobl
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant found not credible and not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Political Opinion, Religion (alevi), Ethnicity (kurd), Membership of a Particular Social Group (family), Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Risk Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Documentary Evidence Weight
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Political Opinion Religion (alevi) Ethnicity (kurd) +6 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Ronald Shacter

Claimant's Counsel

Patricia Nobl

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee (s.96 IRPA)
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection (s.97 IRPA)

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was materially inconsistent, contradicted by his own earlier statements and documentary evidence, and supported documents (arrest warrant, psychological report, party letter) were unreliable or not probative; in combination with country evidence that did not establish a risk of persecution for Alevis or Kurds solely on those grounds, the claimant failed to meet the legal tests under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA and the claim must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant found not credible and not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim denied; no protection granted