MB0-02336

MB0-02336

The panel rejected the claimant's core allegation of attendance and arrest at the June 2009 demonstration as not credible due to material discrepancies with her PIF and timing of documentary evidence; absent credible proof of identification/arrest and given country and consular information and procedural safeguards on removal, the claimant failed to establish it is more likely than not she would face persecution, torture or cruel treatment on return, therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB0-02336
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Annie Belanger; Decision Maker: Anna Brychcy; Tribunal Officer: Myra Shuster; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Refugee Sur Place, Risk Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Social Media Monitoring
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Annie Belanger

Claimant's Counsel

Anna Brychcy

Decision Maker

Myra Shuster

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is credible about attendance at the June 2009 demonstration and subsequent arrest
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel treatment if returned to Iran
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a refugee sur place based on Facebook postings

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's core allegation of attendance and arrest at the June 2009 demonstration as not credible due to material discrepancies with her PIF and timing of documentary evidence; absent credible proof of identification/arrest and given country and consular information and procedural safeguards on removal, the claimant failed to establish it is more likely than not she would face persecution, torture or cruel treatment on return, therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; protection not granted.