TA6-07324

TA6-07324

The panel rejected the claimant's evidence as not credible on material points (inconsistencies, implausible explanations, evidence that visa preparations predated alleged persecution and failure to seek protection in intervening countries) and therefore found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was not targeted and does not face a real risk of torture, threat to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1) IRPA; accordingly he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-07324
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Jack Davis; Adjudicator: Ana Costa
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Immigration Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture, Failure to Seek Protection in Intermediary Countries, Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Torture Failure to Seek Protection in Intermediary Countries Political Opinion

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Jack Davis

Claimant's Counsel

Ana Costa

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Immigration Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a risk of torture on return
  3. 3 Whether the claimant will face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's evidence as not credible on material points (inconsistencies, implausible explanations, evidence that visa preparations predated alleged persecution and failure to seek protection in intervening countries) and therefore found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was not targeted and does not face a real risk of torture, threat to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1) IRPA; accordingly he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.