MB7-07640

MB7-07640

The claimant's testimony contained significant, material contradictions and omissions undermining credibility; Article 1E did not apply given lack of evidence of settlement in Brazil; documentary evidence did not corroborate allegations of politically-motivated persecution and risks asserted amounted to generalized criminality; therefore claimant failed to prove persecution on a Convention ground or that he is a person in need of protection under IRPA, and the claim is rejected.

Citation
MB7-07640
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister); Decision Maker: Melanie Calisto Azevedo
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision on Merits
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Article 1 E Exclusion, Credibility Assessment, Persecution for Political Opinion, Generalized Criminality Vs Targeted Risk, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Law Article 1 E Exclusion Credibility Assessment Persecution for Political Opinion Generalized Criminality Vs Targeted Risk Person in Need of Protection +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Melanie Calisto Azevedo

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1E of the Refugee Convention/section 98 IRPA excludes the claimant due to residence in Brazil
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a credible witness
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was persecuted for political opinion (membership in Inité)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony contained significant, material contradictions and omissions undermining credibility; Article 1E did not apply given lack of evidence of settlement in Brazil; documentary evidence did not corroborate allegations of politically-motivated persecution and risks asserted amounted to generalized criminality; therefore claimant failed to prove persecution on a Convention ground or that he is a person in need of protection under IRPA, and the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim by XXXX XXXX XXXX is rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
  • Panel finds Article 1E of the Refugee Convention does not apply to the claimant