TB6-04823

TB6-04823

The panel rejected the claims because the female claimant's testimony and BOC contained material omissions and fabricated particulars, corroborating evidence was insufficient to support allegations of targeting (including her asserted role at the US embassy and Houthi threats), the claimants' failure to seek protection in Egypt or the United States demonstrated forum shopping undermining subjective fear, and the risk identified on return to Yemen is generalized and thus excluded from protection under s.97.1(b)(ii); accordingly there was no reasonable possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a balance of probabilities risk under s.97(1).

Citation
TB6-04823
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
All refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Torture and Risk to Life, Failure to Claim in Third Countries (forum Shopping), Country Conditions Assessment, BOC (basis of Claim) Omissions and Fabrication
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Torture and Risk to Life Failure to Claim in Third Countries (forum Shopping) +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants face a risk of torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the female claimant's testimony and BOC contained material omissions and fabricated particulars, corroborating evidence was insufficient to support allegations of targeting (including her asserted role at the US embassy and Houthi threats), the claimants' failure to seek protection in Egypt or the United States demonstrated forum shopping undermining subjective fear, and the risk identified on return to Yemen is generalized and thus excluded from protection under s.97.1(b)(ii); accordingly there was no reasonable possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a balance of probabilities risk under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

All refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • All claims for refugee protection are dismissed
  • Decision dated September 20, 2016, signed by N. Cassano