MA5-00695

MA5-00695

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's account was found not credible due to material contradictions and omissions, he failed to seek available state protection or rebut the presumption that Mexico could protect him, and there was no credible evidence of persecution or of risk meeting s.97; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
MA5-00695
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Michel Colin; Presiding Member: Roger Houde; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Before Refugee Protection Division / Hearing and Decision (refused)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Sexual Orientation, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Convention Refugee (s.96), Person in Need of Protection (s.97)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Particular Social Group Sexual Orientation Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Michel Colin

Refugee Protection Officer

Roger Houde

Presiding Member

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Before Refugee Protection Division / Hearing and Decision (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account and internal inconsistencies

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's account was found not credible due to material contradictions and omissions, he failed to seek available state protection or rebut the presumption that Mexico could protect him, and there was no credible evidence of persecution or of risk meeting s.97; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.