TB2-06290

TB2-06290

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible, her testimony lacked corroborative documentary and police evidence, and her conduct (travel to/return from South Africa, Portugal visa application) was inconsistent with a genuine subjective fear; therefore both the subjective and objective elements of the refugee definition were not met and she is not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB2-06290
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim denied; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Membership in a Particular Social Group, Family as Particular Social Group, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Well Founded Fear, Need for Protection Under S.97(1)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Membership in a Particular Social Group Family as Particular Social Group Credibility Assessment State Protection Well Founded Fear +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible, her testimony lacked corroborative documentary and police evidence, and her conduct (travel to/return from South Africa, Portugal visa application) was inconsistent with a genuine subjective fear; therefore both the subjective and objective elements of the refugee definition were not met and she is not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim denied; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee claim denied
  • No protection granted; removal to Swaziland permitted