TB1-14163

TB1-14163

The female claimant's testimony and evidence were found not credible and insufficiently corroborated; because the other claimants' cases depended on her account and the asserted particular social group did not meet legal criteria, the panel concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and rejected their claims.

Citation
TB1-14163
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse / Female Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Division Hearing Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision Following Hearing and Post‑hearing Submissions
Outcome
Claims rejected. Claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Section 96 IRPA, Subsection 97(1) IRPA, Child Sexual Abuse Allegations, Divorce/access Arrangements
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Law (contextual) Credibility Assessment Particular Social Group State Protection Convention Refugee Status Section 96 IRPA +3 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse / Female Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister of Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Division Hearing Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision Following Hearing and Post‑hearing Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants form a particular social group (adults protecting minor children from a pedophile)
  3. 3 Whether the female claimant's evidence is credible and sufficiently corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The female claimant's testimony and evidence were found not credible and insufficiently corroborated; because the other claimants' cases depended on her account and the asserted particular social group did not meet legal criteria, the panel concluded the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and rejected their claims.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected. Claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of the principal claimant, the female claimant and the two minor claimants are rejected.