TB7-15932

TB7-15932

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible and concluded that the documentary evidence relied upon was uncorroborated, inconsistent and potentially fabricated; absent credible evidence of financial donations and of threats or nexus to JM/SSP, there is no objective basis for a well‑founded fear of persecution or for risk of torture, therefore the claimant and dependants do not meet the definitions in ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b) of IRPA.

Citation
TB7-15932
Parties
Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; principal claimant and dependants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Well Founded Fear of Persecution, Risk of Torture, Evidence and Documentary Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Well Founded Fear of Persecution Risk of Torture Evidence and Documentary Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) and (b)
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant's oral testimony and documentary evidence regarding financial donations and threats
  3. 3 Whether alleged acts by JM and SSP amount to persecution connected to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible and concluded that the documentary evidence relied upon was uncorroborated, inconsistent and potentially fabricated; absent credible evidence of financial donations and of threats or nexus to JM/SSP, there is no objective basis for a well‑founded fear of persecution or for risk of torture, therefore the claimant and dependants do not meet the definitions in ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; principal claimant and dependants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b) of IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal claimant), his wife and their children; claims dismissed pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act