MB1-02807

MB1-02807

Claimant's claim was rejected because the panel found her testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, found documentary evidence undermining her allegations (including the claimant's mother still living and active in Rwanda and an apparently fraudulent petition), and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the presumption of state protection was not rebutted; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB1-02807
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Adjudicator: Sylvie Roy; Tribunal Officer: Myriam De Bailleul
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Particular Social Group, Burden of Proof, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Assessment Particular Social Group +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Sylvie Roy

Adjudicator

Myriam De Bailleul

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's narrative and corroboration

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant's claim was rejected because the panel found her testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, found documentary evidence undermining her allegations (including the claimant's mother still living and active in Rwanda and an apparently fraudulent petition), and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the presumption of state protection was not rebutted; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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