VA9-04173

VA9-04173

The panel rejected the claims because the adult claimants failed to provide credible, consistent testimony and reasonably expected corroborative documentary evidence about their business and alleged extortion; delays in departure and claiming and implausible conduct undermined subjective fear; country documentation showed corruption but not persecution; therefore the claimants did not establish on the balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97 IRPA.

Citation
VA9-04173
Parties
Female Claimant (wife): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Claimant (husband): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister (Government of Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (de Novo Hearing Following Federal Court Remittal) / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (final Determination)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Extortion, Sexual Assault, State Protection, Credibility and Corroboration, Delay in Claiming, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Extortion Sexual Assault State Protection Credibility and Corroboration +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Claimant (wife)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Claimant (husband)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Minister (Government of Canada)

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (de Novo Hearing Following Federal Court Remittal) / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants established objective and subjective fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the adult claimants failed to provide credible, consistent testimony and reasonably expected corroborative documentary evidence about their business and alleged extortion; delays in departure and claiming and implausible conduct undermined subjective fear; country documentation showed corruption but not persecution; therefore the claimants did not establish on the balance of probabilities that they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are rejected