MA8-05503

MA8-05503

The panel found the principal claimant not credible due to omissions, contradictions and implausible explanations, failure to corroborate central facts (cohabitation, complaint reports, employment), and submission of a document that was not a report to authorities; for those reasons the claimants failed to prove a well-founded fear under section 96 or that they are in need of protection under section 97 IRPA, and the claims were rejected.

Citation
MA8-05503
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant (derivative): XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX; Claimant (derivative): XXXX XXXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Credibility, State Protection, Domestic Violence, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Persecution Family Law Particular Social Group Credibility State Protection Domestic Violence +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant (derivative)

XXXX XXXXX XXXX

Claimant (derivative)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the principal claimant is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the principal claimant not credible due to omissions, contradictions and implausible explanations, failure to corroborate central facts (cohabitation, complaint reports, employment), and submission of a document that was not a report to authorities; for those reasons the claimants failed to prove a well-founded fear under section 96 or that they are in need of protection under section 97 IRPA, and the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXX XXXX are rejected
  • Claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA