MB5-03849

MB5-03849

The claim was rejected because the tribunal found the claimant not credible: significant discrepancies and late amendments to the Basis of Claim, lack of corroboration for core allegations (politically or ethnically motivated assaults and travel prohibition), and behaviour inconsistent with a person fearing persecution (leaving the U.S. before asylum hearing) meant the claimant did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or death under ss.96 or 97(1).

Citation
MB5-03849
Parties
Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXX XXXX; Intervenor/respondent: Minister of Public Safety
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (reasons Delivered)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Asylum Procedure, Identity and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Asylum Procedure Identity and Corroboration

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

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Minister of Public Safety

Intervenor/respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (reasons Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony and amended Basis of Claim are credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the tribunal found the claimant not credible: significant discrepancies and late amendments to the Basis of Claim, lack of corroboration for core allegations (politically or ethnically motivated assaults and travel prohibition), and behaviour inconsistent with a person fearing persecution (leaving the U.S. before asylum hearing) meant the claimant did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or death under ss.96 or 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.