TA6-05880

TA6-05880

The panel found the claimant not credible due to material inconsistencies (contradictory evidence about kickbacks, implausible methods of media outreach, and lack of knowledge of a key state election despite alleged political activity) and absence of corroborating documents; therefore the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution, and the claims were rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA6-05880
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim / Decision (post Hearing)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Political Opinion, Membership in a Political Group, Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Political Opinion Membership in a Political Group Documentary Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim / Decision (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was employed as alleged and active in political campaigning
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a credible witness
  3. 3 Whether the claimant established a well-founded fear or a serious possibility of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant not credible due to material inconsistencies (contradictory evidence about kickbacks, implausible methods of media outreach, and lack of knowledge of a key state election despite alleged political activity) and absence of corroborating documents; therefore the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility of persecution, and the claims were rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims rejected pursuant to section 96 and section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act