MA8-10394

MA8-10394

The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant's overall credibility impaired by deliberate misrepresentation of identity and travel, material inconsistencies with contemporaneous visa/immigration records, failure to obtain or explain expected corroborative evidence for alleged torture and for his wife's testimonial letter, and implausibilities (including official travel authorization despite alleged targeting); therefore the claimant failed to establish a nexus to political opinion or a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture on return.

Citation
MA8-10394
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Intervenor/respondent: Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Political Opinion, Persecution, Torture, Credibility Assessment, Vulnerability and Procedural Accommodation, Misrepresentation, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Political Opinion Persecution Torture Credibility Assessment +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Intervenor/respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether claimant established nexus between political opinion and risk
  3. 3 Whether alleged torture and threats are corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant's overall credibility impaired by deliberate misrepresentation of identity and travel, material inconsistencies with contemporaneous visa/immigration records, failure to obtain or explain expected corroborative evidence for alleged torture and for his wife's testimonial letter, and implausibilities (including official travel authorization despite alleged targeting); therefore the claimant failed to establish a nexus to political opinion or a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture on return.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and is not a person in need of protection under section 97; refugee protection claim is rejected.