MA8-06070

MA8-06070

The panel rejected the refugee protection claims because the principal claimant's evidence was not credible—contradictions, omissions and implausibilities, absence of corroborating documentation, and behaviour inconsistent with a genuine fear (notably delay in leaving and continued residence and employment)—and therefore she failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or personal risk under section 97; the derivative claims of the children likewise failed.

Citation
MA8-06070
Parties
Claimant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXXXX; Claimant Dependent Child: XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX; Claimant Dependent Child: XXXX XXXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Derivative Claims for Children, Delay in Leaving Country
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Gender Based Violence Particular Social Group Domestic Violence State Protection Credibility Assessment Derivative Claims for Children +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXX

Claimant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant Dependent Child

XXXX XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant Dependent Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant belongs to a particular social group (women victims of domestic violence)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee protection claims because the principal claimant's evidence was not credible—contradictions, omissions and implausibilities, absence of corroborating documentation, and behaviour inconsistent with a genuine fear (notably delay in leaving and continued residence and employment)—and therefore she failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or personal risk under section 97; the derivative claims of the children likewise failed.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.