MA5-07021

MA5-07021

The claimant's claim was rejected because the panel found him not credible due to multiple material inconsistencies between his PIF and testimony and absence of corroborating evidence for serious allegations, and consequently he failed to establish refugee status under s.96 or need for protection under s.97.

Citation
MA5-07021
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Marie-Josée Blain; Refugee Protection Officer: Donna Ramacieri; Adjudicator: Me Alain Bissonnette
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1).
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Corroboration, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Corroboration +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Marie-Josée Blain

Claimant's Counsel

Donna Ramacieri

Refugee Protection Officer

Me Alain Bissonnette

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claim was rejected because the panel found him not credible due to multiple material inconsistencies between his PIF and testimony and absence of corroborating evidence for serious allegations, and consequently he failed to establish refugee status under s.96 or need for protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1).

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected