TA3-00971

TA3-00971

The panel rejected the claims because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimants failed to prove a subjective fear of serious harm; their conduct from 1997 to 2003—living openly in the USA, failing to seek asylum or other available protection, not contacting relatives in Canada and omissions in testimony—was inconsistent with conduct expected of persons who truly fear persecution, warranting rejection under ss.96 and/or 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA3-00971
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: E. Summers; Designated Representative: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minister's Counsel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Adjudicator: Cliff Berry
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear, Subjective Fear, Delay, State Protection, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Well Founded Fear Subjective Fear Delay State Protection Credibility +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

E. Summers

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minister's Counsel

Cliff Berry

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established subjective fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether delay in seeking protection undermines the claim
  3. 3 Credibility and omissions in testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimants failed to prove a subjective fear of serious harm; their conduct from 1997 to 2003—living openly in the USA, failing to seek asylum or other available protection, not contacting relatives in Canada and omissions in testimony—was inconsistent with conduct expected of persons who truly fear persecution, warranting rejection under ss.96 and/or 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXXXXX are rejected pursuant to sections 96 and/or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)