MA4-05604

MA4-05604

The claim was rejected because the panel found pervasive, material contradictions between the claimant's initial statements, immigration documents and testimony, and found the claimant's explanations implausible; those credibility findings undermined the foundational facts of the claim and the asserted risk on return, so the claim did not meet the requirements of ss.96-97 IRPA.

Citation
MA4-05604
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Before the Refugee Protection Division and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Findings, Contradictions in Evidence, False Statements, Ethnic Discrimination, Evidence Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Findings Contradictions in Evidence False Statements Ethnic Discrimination +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Before the Refugee Protection Division and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants face a risk to life or persecution on return to Rwanda
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are credible given contradictions between initial statements, immigration forms and testimony
  3. 3 Whether the claimant established identity and history necessary to found a claim under ss.96-97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found pervasive, material contradictions between the claimant's initial statements, immigration documents and testimony, and found the claimant's explanations implausible; those credibility findings undermined the foundational facts of the claim and the asserted risk on return, so the claim did not meet the requirements of ss.96-97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • The claim is rejected.