MA5-07257

MA5-07257

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible due to a central, acknowledged contradiction with his prior statement to an immigration officer and a significant unexplained omission (failure to produce or disclose the abortion evidence); on that basis the panel concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture, and thus he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA5-07257
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Fred Saikali; Panel Member: Me Guy Lebel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution Risk, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Harassment/relationship Based Risk, Student Visas
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Risk Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Harassment/relationship Based Risk +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Fred Saikali

Claimant's Counsel

Me Guy Lebel

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution if returned to Cambodia
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether claimant's testimony is credible for the purposes of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible due to a central, acknowledged contradiction with his prior statement to an immigration officer and a significant unexplained omission (failure to produce or disclose the abortion evidence); on that basis the panel concluded there was no serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture, and thus he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed
  • No findings of Convention refugee status or need for protection