MA8-05316

Panel rejected claims because claimant was found not credible, failed to establish identity of persecutor or nexus to a Convention ground, and failed to demonstrate that effective state protection was unavailable, therefore not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation: MA8-05316
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 15 June 2010
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision Following Hearing (hearing June 3, 2010; Decision June 15, 2010)
Outcome: Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics: Refugee Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection

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 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Decision Following Hearing (hearing June 3, 2010; Decision June 15, 2010)

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
3 Whether a nexus exists between alleged harm and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

Refugee protection claims of the principal claimant and spouse are rejected