TA8-08535

TA8-08535

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant was found not credible due to material inconsistencies between his oral testimony, his Personal Information Form and contemporaneous reports, implausible accounts, and apparent creation or amendment of documents to advance the claim; consequently the claimants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution and the claims were refused under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA8-08535
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Aka XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Son: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Aka XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Daughter: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Daughter: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Aka XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Extortion and Threats, State Protection, Documentary Inconsistencies, Personal Information Form Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Extortion and Threats State Protection Documentary Inconsistencies Personal Information Form Omissions

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Aka XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Son

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Aka XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Daughter

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Aka XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible
  2. 2 Whether documentary reports are authentic or fabricated
  3. 3 Whether claimants sought state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant was found not credible due to material inconsistencies between his oral testimony, his Personal Information Form and contemporaneous reports, implausible accounts, and apparent creation or amendment of documents to advance the claim; consequently the claimants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution and the claims were refused under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act