VB6-00854

VB6-00854

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant and key corroborating witnesses lacked credibility and reliable evidence, the alleged harms lacked a demonstrated nexus to a Convention ground, changed country conditions reduced any political risk, and the personal vendetta allegations were speculative and unsubstantiated; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Act.

Citation
VB6-00854
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Canada Border Services Agency (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RPD Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Sur Place / Personal Vendetta
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Nexus to Convention Grounds Sur Place / Personal Vendetta

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Canada Border Services Agency (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RPD Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant and corroborating witnesses are credible and reliable

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant and key corroborating witnesses lacked credibility and reliable evidence, the alleged harms lacked a demonstrated nexus to a Convention ground, changed country conditions reduced any political risk, and the personal vendetta allegations were speculative and unsubstantiated; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Act.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim rejected; claim dismissed by RPD