MA5-03229

MA5-03229

The claimant's application is refused because she failed to provide credible, consistent and plausible evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution; material omissions and inconsistencies undermined her testimony and the panel found an internal flight alternative reasonable, such that the requirements of sections 96 and 97 IRPA were not met.

Citation
MA5-03229
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Ian D. Hamilton; Refugee Protection Officer: Gérard Therrien; Member / Panel Chair: Me Michael Hamelin
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim / Hearing and Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Gender Related Persecution, Convention Refugee Definition, Omissions and Inconsistencies, Plausibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Membership of a Particular Social Group Gender Related Persecution Convention Refugee Definition +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Ian D. Hamilton

Claimant's Counsel

Gérard Therrien

Refugee Protection Officer

Me Michael Hamelin

Member / Panel Chair

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim / Hearing and Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and consistency of claimant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application is refused because she failed to provide credible, consistent and plausible evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution; material omissions and inconsistencies undermined her testimony and the panel found an internal flight alternative reasonable, such that the requirements of sections 96 and 97 IRPA were not met.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claim refused; no protection granted