TA9-09364

TA9-09364

The panel accepted documentary and testimonial chronology showing long delays and voluntary returns to Colombia and stays in Italy and Mexico without seeking local asylum, plus the claimant's failure to produce corroborative documentation or credible explanation for omissions; these facts undermined subjective fear and credibility and led the panel to conclude the claimant's fear was not objectively well-founded, so she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-09364
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (rpd)
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Delayed Claim/protracted Postponement, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Countries, Political Activities, Persecution by Non State Actors (farc), Corroboration of Evidence, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Delayed Claim/protracted Postponement Failure to Seek Protection in Third Countries +4 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has subjective fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether fear is objectively well-founded
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted documentary and testimonial chronology showing long delays and voluntary returns to Colombia and stays in Italy and Mexico without seeking local asylum, plus the claimant's failure to produce corroborative documentation or credible explanation for omissions; these facts undermined subjective fear and credibility and led the panel to conclude the claimant's fear was not objectively well-founded, so she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.