TB0-03707

TB0-03707

Both claimants’ refugee claims were rejected because the Tribunal found their testimony not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and lack of independent corroborating evidence, and therefore they failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or other serious harm on return as required by sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TB0-03707
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Final Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Persecution, Political Opinion, Religion, Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Persecution Political Opinion Religion Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were credible
  2. 2 Whether claimants were arrested or detained by Syrian security forces
  3. 3 Whether claimants established a serious possibility of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

Both claimants’ refugee claims were rejected because the Tribunal found their testimony not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and lack of independent corroborating evidence, and therefore they failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or other serious harm on return as required by sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claim of the principal claimant rejected.
  • Refugee claim of the older claimant rejected.