MA6-02522

MA6-02522

The panel rejected the claim because the principal claimant was found not credible—her testimony contained material inconsistencies, documentary evidence lacked probative value, and her conduct (sojourning and returns to Paraguay, failure to seek local remedies) undermined the claimed fear; even if facts were accepted, she failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Paraguay—therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA6-02522
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Relocation, Evidence Authenticity, Delay in Claiming Asylum
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Family Law Gender Based Violence Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of principal claimant and probative value of documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the principal claimant was found not credible—her testimony contained material inconsistencies, documentary evidence lacked probative value, and her conduct (sojourning and returns to Paraguay, failure to seek local remedies) undermined the claimed fear; even if facts were accepted, she failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Paraguay—therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected by RPD; removal possible subject to applicable immigration law and processes.