MA5-03242

MA5-03242

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant's testimony was inconsistent, hesitant and implausible on material facts (dates, locations, mechanism of LTTE knowledge and conduct), she failed to seek or rebut availability of state protection, and the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that they would face persecution, torture or a real risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA5-03242
Parties
Claimant: Mrs. XXXXXXXXXX; Claimant Spouse: Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Patricia Nobl; Decision Maker (panel Member): Farid Osmane
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, State Protection Availability, Risk of Torture/cruel or Unusual Treatment, Extortion by Non State Actor (ltte), Burden of Proof, Ceasefire Context
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Human Rights Credibility Assessment Persecution State Protection Availability Risk of Torture/cruel or Unusual Treatment Extortion by Non State Actor (ltte) +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant Spouse

Patricia Nobl

Refugee Protection Officer

Farid Osmane

Decision Maker (panel Member)

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' testimony is credible and consistent

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant's testimony was inconsistent, hesitant and implausible on material facts (dates, locations, mechanism of LTTE knowledge and conduct), she failed to seek or rebut availability of state protection, and the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that they would face persecution, torture or a real risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims of Mrs. XXXXXXXXXX and Mr. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX are rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.