MA5-03078

MA5-03078

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant was found not credible on central aspects of his story and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; on that basis he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA5-03078
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent (state): Refugee Protection Officer; Decision Maker (panel Member): Hélène Panagakos
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division, Irb) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent (state)

Hélène Panagakos

Decision Maker (panel Member)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division, Irb) / Hearing and Decision

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant was found not credible on central aspects of his story and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; on that basis he was neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection is rejected.