MA9-05847

MA9-05847

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was found not credible due to major inconsistencies and implausibilities (escape from a guarded camp, travel on a US visa as a minor without appearance, varying accounts of visits by authorities), and because objective country evidence did not establish a reasonable chance of persecution or a personal risk of torture or death; accordingly the claimant failed to meet the legal standards under sections 96 and 97 IRPA and the claim was dismissed.

Citation
MA9-05847
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Stéphanie Valois; Decision Maker: Me Ruth Delisle
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision at Refugee Protection Division (merits)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Forced Recruitment, Child Soldiers, Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions, Deserter
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Forced Recruitment Child Soldiers +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Stéphanie Valois

Claimant's Counsel

Me Ruth Delisle

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision at Refugee Protection Division (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a risk of torture, death, or cruel and unusual treatment if returned

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was found not credible due to major inconsistencies and implausibilities (escape from a guarded camp, travel on a US visa as a minor without appearance, varying accounts of visits by authorities), and because objective country evidence did not establish a reasonable chance of persecution or a personal risk of torture or death; accordingly the claimant failed to meet the legal standards under sections 96 and 97 IRPA and the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division