TB5-01661

TB5-01661

The claim fails because the panel concluded the claimant was not credible on central elements (sexual identity and intimate relationships) due to material omissions, contradictions, implausible explanations, lack of corroboration and unjustified delay; the psychological evidence was given no probative weight where based on the claimant's account; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b), and there is no credible basis under s.107(2).

Citation
TB5-01661
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96, 97) / Decision on Merits Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected — not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; no credible basis under s.107(2) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sexual Orientation, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Delay in Claiming, Corroborative Evidence, No Credible Basis (s.107(2))
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sexual Orientation Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Delay in Claiming +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96, 97) / Decision on Merits Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is a credible basis for the claim under s.107(2) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the panel concluded the claimant was not credible on central elements (sexual identity and intimate relationships) due to material omissions, contradictions, implausible explanations, lack of corroboration and unjustified delay; the psychological evidence was given no probative weight where based on the claimant's account; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b), and there is no credible basis under s.107(2).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected — not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; no credible basis under s.107(2) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim for refugee protection.
  • Panel finds no credible or trustworthy evidence such that there is no credible basis for the claim pursuant to section 107(2) IRPA.