TB1-00156

TB1-00156

The panel rejected the claimants' accounts as not credible due to numerous significant inconsistencies, omissions and implausible explanations (employment history, failure to report, travel plans, timing of reports and details of threats), and in the absence of credible evidence that the claimants faced a serious possibility of persecution or lacked state protection, the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA fail and are dismissed.

Citation
TB1-00156
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Well Founded Fear, State Protection, Persecution Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Findings Well Founded Fear State Protection Persecution Risk

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' evidence is credible and trustworthy

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' accounts as not credible due to numerous significant inconsistencies, omissions and implausible explanations (employment history, failure to report, travel plans, timing of reports and details of threats), and in the absence of credible evidence that the claimants faced a serious possibility of persecution or lacked state protection, the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA fail and are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for refugee protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act