MA9-04517

MA9-04517

The tribunal rejected the claim because the principal claimant's evidence contained numerous material inconsistencies and lacked corroboration, and the prolonged delay in filing undermined any asserted well‑founded fear; consequently there was no serious possibility of persecution and the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA9-04517
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Board) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, Credibility, Delay in Making Claim, Risk Assessment, Section 96, Section 97(1), Section 108(4)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Domestic Violence Credibility +5 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Board) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)
  3. 3 Whether domestic/partner violence constitutes membership of a particular social group

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal rejected the claim because the principal claimant's evidence contained numerous material inconsistencies and lacked corroboration, and the prolonged delay in filing undermined any asserted well‑founded fear; consequently there was no serious possibility of persecution and the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims denied