TB7-19774

TB7-19774

The panel found the principal claimant lacked credibility based on fabrication of a Voluntad Popular support letter (and an implausible errata), discrepancies in testimony about political participation, and unjustified delay/travel history demonstrating opportunity to seek protection elsewhere; because the core evidence was disbelieved, there was no established nexus to persecution or serious possibility of harm and all three claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-19774
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (female): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (minister): Respondent (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Claims for Protection Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Final Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Definition, Political Opinion, Document Authenticity, Delay in Departure, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Definition Political Opinion Document Authenticity Delay in Departure +1 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

Respondent (Minister)

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Claims for Protection Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Final Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant’s asserted political activity and nexus to persecution are credible
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence (letters) are authentic

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the principal claimant lacked credibility based on fabrication of a Voluntad Popular support letter (and an implausible errata), discrepancies in testimony about political participation, and unjustified delay/travel history demonstrating opportunity to seek protection elsewhere; because the core evidence was disbelieved, there was no established nexus to persecution or serious possibility of harm and all three claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • All three claims for protection are denied; none of the claimants is found to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA