MA7-05810

MA7-05810

The claimant's credibility was undermined by omissions and contradictory testimony (notably failure to disclose the shooting incident in the PIF) and he failed to show a risk distinct from the general violence in Mexico; accordingly he did not establish a Convention‑based fear of persecution nor a personal risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture, and s.97(1)(b)(ii) applies to exclude protection.

Citation
MA7-05810
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Oscar Fernando Rodas; Decision Maker: Youssoupha Diop; Tribunal Officer: Linda Parker; Minister's Counsel: N/A; Designated Representative: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Persecution, Person in Need of Protection, Convention Refugee, Credibility, Generalized Risk, Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Persecution Person in Need of Protection Convention Refugee Credibility Generalized Risk +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Me Oscar Fernando Rodas

Claimant's Counsel

Youssoupha Diop

Decision Maker

Linda Parker

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Minister's Counsel

N/A

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Oral Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on membership in a particular social group
  2. 2 Credibility assessment due to omissions and contradictions in testimony and PIF
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces individual risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's credibility was undermined by omissions and contradictory testimony (notably failure to disclose the shooting incident in the PIF) and he failed to show a risk distinct from the general violence in Mexico; accordingly he did not establish a Convention‑based fear of persecution nor a personal risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture, and s.97(1)(b)(ii) applies to exclude protection.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected