TB0-01426

TB0-01426

The panel found insufficient evidence to conclude serious reasons for exclusion under Article 1F(a); independently, the claimant's testimony was inconsistent, confusing and inadequately corroborated and he delayed claiming protection, and medical evidence had low probative value—therefore the claimant failed to establish on the required standards that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-01426
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Minister of Public Safety/Canada (intervenor)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Decision on Merits and Exclusion (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimant is not excluded under Article 1F(a) but is also not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Article 1 F(a), Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Credibility and Corroboration, Delay in Claiming, Vulnerable Person Designation, Medical/psychological Evidence, Persecution on Political and Religious Grounds, Torture/non Refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Exclusion Article 1 F(a) Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Credibility and Corroboration +5 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Public Safety/Canada (intervenor)

Respondent/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Decision on Merits and Exclusion (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is excluded under UN 1951 Convention Article 1F(a) for crimes against humanity
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found insufficient evidence to conclude serious reasons for exclusion under Article 1F(a); independently, the claimant's testimony was inconsistent, confusing and inadequately corroborated and he delayed claiming protection, and medical evidence had low probative value—therefore the claimant failed to establish on the required standards that he is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: claimant is not excluded under Article 1F(a) but is also not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.