MA9-12244

MA9-12244

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant was found not credible due to a central contradiction about whether her husband was present during the alleged gang rape, additional unexplained omissions, and failure to seek asylum in the United States; the psychological report did not establish causation for the alleged events and, on that basis, the claimants failed to meet the evidentiary burden under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA9-12244
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Dependent Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Gender Related Persecution, Rape, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Gender Related Persecution Rape Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the principal claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant was found not credible due to a central contradiction about whether her husband was present during the alleged gang rape, additional unexplained omissions, and failure to seek asylum in the United States; the psychological report did not establish causation for the alleged events and, on that basis, the claimants failed to meet the evidentiary burden under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and her two minor children are rejected.