TB0-10144

TB0-10144

The claims were rejected because the principal claimant's allegations were found not credible—material inconsistencies between his PIF and testimony, discrepancies with secondary claimants' PIFs, implausible conduct (timing of returns despite alleged threats), and likely fabrication of shooting and deadline incidents—such that there is no serious possibility of persecution nor real risk of torture or death on return.

Citation
TB0-10144
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX); Secondary Claimant (senior): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (secondary claimant, senior); Secondary Claimant (junior): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (secondary claimant, junior)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected for lack of credibility
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Torture, Risk to Life, Corroboration, Plausibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Torture Risk to Life Corroboration +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

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX)

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (secondary claimant, senior)

Secondary Claimant (senior)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (secondary claimant, junior)

Secondary Claimant (junior)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants face torture or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' testimony and documentary evidence are credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the principal claimant's allegations were found not credible—material inconsistencies between his PIF and testimony, discrepancies with secondary claimants' PIFs, implausible conduct (timing of returns despite alleged threats), and likely fabrication of shooting and deadline incidents—such that there is no serious possibility of persecution nor real risk of torture or death on return.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected for lack of credibility

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims rejected
  • No protection granted under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA