MB2-03544

MB2-03544

The claimant's account was found not credible due to multiple unresolved contradictions, documentary anomalies and inconsistent conduct (not claiming asylum in the United States), the psychological report and medical evidence were based on facts the panel rejected and country evidence did not establish risk related to HIV; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1).

Citation
MB2-03544
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Me Patil Tutunjian; Tribunal Member: Love Saint-Fleur; Counsel for Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision With Reasons After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1).
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Torture, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Vulnerability and Guideline 8, Hiv/aids, Expert Evidence, First Country of Asylum/non‑application
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Torture Risk to Life +5 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Patil Tutunjian

Counsel for Claimant

Love Saint-Fleur

Tribunal Member

N/A

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision With Reasons After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Assessment of claimant credibility and inconsistencies in evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's account was found not credible due to multiple unresolved contradictions, documentary anomalies and inconsistent conduct (not claiming asylum in the United States), the psychological report and medical evidence were based on facts the panel rejected and country evidence did not establish risk related to HIV; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1).