MA6-03744

MA6-03744

The panel rejected the claims because material contradictions, implausibilities and omissions in the claimants' testimony and PIFs destroyed their credibility and there was no probative evidence of persecution tied to a Convention ground; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
MA6-03744
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse (claimant): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX FRIAS; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees (s.96) and not persons in need of protection (s.97).
Legal Topics
Credibility Findings, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution by Non State Actors, Corruption, Drug Trafficking, Family Unit, Convention Refugee (s.96), Person in Need of Protection (s.97)
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Criminal Law (drug Trafficking) Administrative Law Evidence Law Credibility Findings Internal Flight Alternative Persecution by Non State Actors Corruption +4 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse (claimant)

XXXXX XXXXX FRIAS

Minor Claimant (daughter)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because material contradictions, implausibilities and omissions in the claimants' testimony and PIFs destroyed their credibility and there was no probative evidence of persecution tied to a Convention ground; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees (s.96) and not persons in need of protection (s.97).

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed by Refugee Protection Division on June 28, 2007