TA5-14611

TA5-14611

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and pivotal omissions, failed to establish that he was being specifically sought as an MDC member or family member of an MDC member, and therefore did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA5-14611
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Counsel: Roderick H. McDowell; Minister's Counsel: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Findings, Political Opinion, Membership in Political Party, Persecution, Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Findings Political Opinion +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Roderick H. McDowell

Claimant Counsel

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minister's Counsel

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Protection / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faced past persecution by ZANU-PF or associates
  2. 2 Whether claimant is targeted due to political opinion or MDC membership or family ties
  3. 3 Credibility and omissions in claimant's testimony and PIF

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and pivotal omissions, failed to establish that he was being specifically sought as an MDC member or family member of an MDC member, and therefore did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return under Sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection