TA6-06127

TA6-06127

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to establish their identity and provided inconsistent, non‑credible testimony and inadequate corroboration; as a result they did not prove membership in a particular social group or a well‑founded fear of persecution, nor a real risk of serious harm under s.97(1), and the claims were dismissed.

Citation
TA6-06127
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: Ms XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Counsel for the Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Female Genital Mutilation, Credibility, Identity Documents, Protection Claim, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Female Genital Mutilation Credibility +3 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

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Minor Claimant

Ms XXXXX

Designated Representative

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Counsel for the Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established their identity under section 106 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants met the burden to prove membership in a particular social group
  3. 3 Whether claimants demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to establish their identity and provided inconsistent, non‑credible testimony and inadequate corroboration; as a result they did not prove membership in a particular social group or a well‑founded fear of persecution, nor a real risk of serious harm under s.97(1), and the claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • The refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and her minor daughter XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are rejected.