VA6-00039

VA6-00039

The panel rejected the claims because central elements were found not credible; inconsistencies, implausibilities and unexplained delay undermined the claimants' assertion of a well-founded fear linked to a Convention ground, documentary country evidence did not indicate a real risk of persecution or torture on return, and the female claimant did not establish an independent, credible gender-based claim; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VA6-00039
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant Child: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Gender Based Persecution, Country Conditions, Delay in Departure, Marriage, Honor Based Violence, Family Vendetta
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility +6 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants meet the definition of Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants' evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because central elements were found not credible; inconsistencies, implausibilities and unexplained delay undermined the claimants' assertion of a well-founded fear linked to a Convention ground, documentary country evidence did not indicate a real risk of persecution or torture on return, and the female claimant did not establish an independent, credible gender-based claim; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • The claims are dismissed; no protection granted to the claimants