MB0-04463

MB0-04463

The panel rejected both refugee claims because credibility was fundamentally undermined by unexplained omissions and contradictions, inability to provide dates, late and self‑serving documentary evidence, and conduct inconsistent with a genuine fear (extended unlawful residence in the United States without seeking asylum), resulting in failure to prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk per ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MB0-04463
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected for both claimants
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Omissions in Personal Information Form, Late Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Findings Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Omissions in Personal Information Form +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether omissions and contradictions undermine refugee claims
  3. 3 Whether claimants established serious possibility of persecution under section 96 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected both refugee claims because credibility was fundamentally undermined by unexplained omissions and contradictions, inability to provide dates, late and self‑serving documentary evidence, and conduct inconsistent with a genuine fear (extended unlawful residence in the United States without seeking asylum), resulting in failure to prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk per ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected for both claimants

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX are rejected; claimants are not found to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of IRPA.