CA5-00363

CA5-00363

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to meet their burden under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA: credibility was impaired by inconsistencies, unreasonable delay and failure to seek protection while in the United States, and there was insufficient reliable corroborative evidence under Rule 7; these deficiencies fatal to establishing a serious possibility of persecution or a likelihood of torture or risk to life.

Citation
CA5-00363
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Mohammad Safeer Haque; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Designated Representative: NIL; Minister's Counsel: NIL; Panel Member: Marnie Armstrong
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Adjudication — Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Gender Related Persecution, Safe Third Country/sojourning, Credibility and Corroboration, Production of Documents (rule 7), Internal Flight Alternative/relocation, Abduction, Persecution of Family Members, Abuse of Process/economic Migration
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Particular Social Group Gender Related Persecution Safe Third Country/sojourning Credibility and Corroboration Production of Documents (rule 7) +4 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Mohammad Safeer Haque

Claimant's Counsel

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

NIL

Designated Representative

NIL

Minister's Counsel

Marnie Armstrong

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Adjudication — Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground (s.96 IRPA)
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a risk of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment (s.97(1) IRPA)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants and sufficiency of corroborative evidence under RPD Rule 7

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to meet their burden under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA: credibility was impaired by inconsistencies, unreasonable delay and failure to seek protection while in the United States, and there was insufficient reliable corroborative evidence under Rule 7; these deficiencies fatal to establishing a serious possibility of persecution or a likelihood of torture or risk to life.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA