TA4-12803

TA4-12803

The panel found the claimants' testimony on key material facts not credible and marked by implausibilities and fabricated documentary support; the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Cairo) existed, therefore on balance of probabilities there was no serious possibility of persecution nor risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment and the claims were rejected.

Citation
TA4-12803
Parties
Claimant Principal: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: S. Indrasigamany
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Determination
Outcome
Claims of XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX rejected; not Convention refugees and not persons in danger of torture, nor at risk to life, nor at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Torture, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility, Religious Persecution, Abduction
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Torture Internal Flight Alternative State Protection +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Principal

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Spouse

S. Indrasigamany

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant testimony
  2. 2 Subjective component of well-founded fear
  3. 3 Objective component of well-founded fear and identity of persecutor

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants' testimony on key material facts not credible and marked by implausibilities and fabricated documentary support; the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Cairo) existed, therefore on balance of probabilities there was no serious possibility of persecution nor risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment and the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims of XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX rejected; not Convention refugees and not persons in danger of torture, nor at risk to life, nor at risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims dismissed
  • Decision dated February 8, 2006