MA7-00259

MA7-00259

The panel rejected the claimants' applications because pervasive inconsistencies, anachronisms (notably documentary evidence showing the alleged warden was no longer in post at the relevant time), unexplained late amendments and contradictions across statements rendered the account not credible; absent credible evidence of a real risk, the claimants did not satisfy s.97 or s.97(1).

Citation
MA7-00259
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Son: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.97 and S.97(1)) / Hearing and Final Decision Following Hearings on October 14, 2010 and January 13, 2011; Decision Rendered March 18, 2011
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution of Family Member, Threats From Criminal Organizations, Documentary Inconsistency, Late Amendment of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Persecution of Family Member Threats From Criminal Organizations +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX

Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.97 and S.97(1)) / Hearing and Final Decision Following Hearings on October 14, 2010 and January 13, 2011; Decision Rendered March 18, 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established a well‑founded fear of persecution under s.97 or need for protection under s.97(1)
  2. 2 Whether alleged threats by prison warden and drug cartel are credible and linked to claimants' protected ground
  3. 3 Whether material inconsistencies, anachronisms and late amendments defeat the claimants' credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' applications because pervasive inconsistencies, anachronisms (notably documentary evidence showing the alleged warden was no longer in post at the relevant time), unexplained late amendments and contradictions across statements rendered the account not credible; absent credible evidence of a real risk, the claimants did not satisfy s.97 or s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection of XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX, and XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX is rejected