TB0-04802

TB0-04802

The panel rejected the claims because it made adverse credibility findings based on omissions and implausibilities in testimony, weak and unpersuasive corroborating documents, lack of expected police/medical/military records, and post‑detention conduct inconsistent with claimed risk; accordingly the claimants failed to establish a reasonable or serious possibility of persecution or a substantial risk of torture and the claims were dismissed under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-04802
Parties
Claimant Asylum Seeker: XXXXXXXX; Claimant Asylum Seeker: XXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision Following Hearings (nov 8, 2011; Feb 28, 2012)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Status Determination, Credibility Findings, Conscientious Objection / Military Deserter, Risk of Torture, Corroborating Evidence, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Status Determination Credibility Findings Conscientious Objection / Military Deserter Risk of Torture Corroborating Evidence +1 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 8 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX

Claimant Asylum Seeker

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant Asylum Seeker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision Following Hearings (nov 8, 2011; Feb 28, 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimants face risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Credibility and omissions in claimants' evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because it made adverse credibility findings based on omissions and implausibilities in testimony, weak and unpersuasive corroborating documents, lack of expected police/medical/military records, and post‑detention conduct inconsistent with claimed risk; accordingly the claimants failed to establish a reasonable or serious possibility of persecution or a substantial risk of torture and the claims were dismissed under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; decision dated March 7, 2012; rejection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act