MA7-06819

MA7-06819

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to establish a credible subjective fear and provided insufficient objective corroboration; his conduct (one month delay to leave, two voluntary returns, failure to seek asylum in the U.S.), inconsistencies, and the adverse U.S. sponsorship decision demonstrably undermine the plausibility of his account and therefore the legal threshold under s.96 IRPA is not met.

Citation
MA7-06819
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Adjudicator: Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (rpd)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Imputed Political Opinion, Religious Practice, Credibility, Delay in Leaving the Country, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries, Reavailment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Imputed Political Opinion Religious Practice Credibility +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant's fear is credible (subjective fear) and supported by objective evidence
  3. 3 Whether membership in the social group 'pastor' or imputed political opinion gives rise to risk

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to establish a credible subjective fear and provided insufficient objective corroboration; his conduct (one month delay to leave, two voluntary returns, failure to seek asylum in the U.S.), inconsistencies, and the adverse U.S. sponsorship decision demonstrably undermine the plausibility of his account and therefore the legal threshold under s.96 IRPA is not met.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected