TA6-00022

TA6-00022

The claimants' applications were rejected because they failed to establish their Somali identity with acceptable documentation, produced fraudulent documents, gave testimony containing significant inconsistencies and implausibilities, and delayed departure and failed to seek protection in France; these factors collectively destroyed credibility and subjective fear, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA6-00022
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for the Claimant(s): CERI FORBES; Member, Refugee Protection Division (panel): Ken Sandhu; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Identity, Credibility, Corroboration, Identity Documents, Authenticity, Delay in Leaving, Failure to Seek Protection, Minor Claimants
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Asylum Identity Credibility Corroboration Identity Documents Authenticity +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

CERI FORBES

Counsel for the Claimant(s)

Ken Sandhu

Member, Refugee Protection Division (panel)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants established identity as Somali citizens
  2. 2 Whether documentary and testimonial evidence was credible and corroborated
  3. 3 Whether delay in leaving and failure to claim in France undermined subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' applications were rejected because they failed to establish their Somali identity with acceptable documentation, produced fraudulent documents, gave testimony containing significant inconsistencies and implausibilities, and delayed departure and failed to seek protection in France; these factors collectively destroyed credibility and subjective fear, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division denies the claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX for refugee protection