MA6-02154

MA6-02154

The claimants' applications are rejected because the tribunal found major credibility defects and lack of independent corroboration for the alleged state‑sponsored persecution; documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish a real risk of targeted, systematic persecution by the Nigerian government or that the principal claimant or his family are members of a targeted violent movement, and delay and passport renewals undermined the claimed subjective fear.

Citation
MA6-02154
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Daughter: XXXXX XXXXX; Child (minor): XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (de Novo Hearing) / Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.
Legal Topics
Persecution, Political Opinion, Ethnic Discrimination, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Delay
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Persecution Political Opinion Ethnic Discrimination Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility +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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Daughter

XXXXX XXXXX

Child (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (de Novo Hearing) / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97(1)(a)-(b)
  3. 3 Credibility and corroboration of claimant's allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' applications are rejected because the tribunal found major credibility defects and lack of independent corroboration for the alleged state‑sponsored persecution; documentary and testimonial evidence did not establish a real risk of targeted, systematic persecution by the Nigerian government or that the principal claimant or his family are members of a targeted violent movement, and delay and passport renewals undermined the claimed subjective fear.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.