MA3-02197

MA3-02197

The claim is rejected because the panel found essential elements of the claimant's allegations not credible or implausible, the documentary evidence contradicted key assertions, the alleged persecutor no longer had power after the 2006 elections, and internal relocation within Peru was a viable option, so the claimants did not meet the s.97(1) threshold.

Citation
MA3-02197
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution, Torture, Harassment, Arrest, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Country Conditions
Source Language
English

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant's allegations
  3. 3 Nexus between mistreatment and political opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the panel found essential elements of the claimant's allegations not credible or implausible, the documentary evidence contradicted key assertions, the alleged persecutor no longer had power after the 2006 elections, and internal relocation within Peru was a viable option, so the claimants did not meet the s.97(1) threshold.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected