MA6-05300

MA6-05300

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant's evidence not credible due to material inconsistencies, significant omissions, lack of corroborating documents or contemporaneous complaints despite serious allegations, and evidence that travel arrangements predated the complaint; therefore the claimants failed to establish refugee status under s.96 or need for protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MA6-05300
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant Designated Representative Is Mother: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim dismissed; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, Sojourning/reavailment, Production of Documents, Credibility, Rules of Procedure, Minor Claimant, Mexico
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Particular Social Group Domestic Violence Sojourning/reavailment Production of Documents Credibility Rules of Procedure +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant Designated Representative Is Mother

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether female claimant is a member of a particular social group (women victims of violence) and persecuted for that reason
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant due to inconsistencies between PIF, narrative, affidavit and testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant's evidence not credible due to material inconsistencies, significant omissions, lack of corroborating documents or contemporaneous complaints despite serious allegations, and evidence that travel arrangements predated the complaint; therefore the claimants failed to establish refugee status under s.96 or need for protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim dismissed; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed; claimants not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection