MA6-04586

MA6-04586

The claimant's application was rejected because she failed to credibly establish that she was ever targeted by Zimbabwean authorities or that her family name would expose her to a real risk of persecution on return; documentary evidence and temporal context showed no nexus to persecution and inconsistencies undermined the claimant's supporting evidence.

Citation
MA6-04586
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: Me Michelle Langelier; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer (Document Deposit); Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel (Document Deposit)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) / Hearing and Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Persecution, Persecution of Family Members, Political Opinion, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Risk Assessment, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Persecution Persecution of Family Members Political Opinion Membership of a Particular Social Group Risk Assessment +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Michelle Langelier

Decision Maker

Refugee Protection Officer (Document Deposit)

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister's Counsel (Document Deposit)

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) / Hearing and Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces a real risk of persecution on return to Zimbabwe based on political opinion or family name
  2. 2 Whether claimant's activities or imputed activities as a teacher exposed her to state targeting
  3. 3 Whether claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application was rejected because she failed to credibly establish that she was ever targeted by Zimbabwean authorities or that her family name would expose her to a real risk of persecution on return; documentary evidence and temporal context showed no nexus to persecution and inconsistencies undermined the claimant's supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected