TB4-01740

TB4-01740

The claimants' allegations were rejected because the principal claimant's material inconsistencies about his BNP membership, unexplained omission of ongoing threats from his Basis of Claim, and the limited probative value of corroborative documents led the Panel to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants were not credible and therefore failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a personal risk under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB4-01740
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Persecution

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant's assertion of active BNP membership
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a real risk from Awami League actors given number of BNP supporters

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' allegations were rejected because the principal claimant's material inconsistencies about his BNP membership, unexplained omission of ongoing threats from his Basis of Claim, and the limited probative value of corroborative documents led the Panel to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants were not credible and therefore failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a personal risk under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for refugee protection