TA5-09508

TA5-09508

The claimant's allegations were found not credible due to lack of corroborative evidence and internal inconsistencies; his voluntary return to Zimbabwe on two occasions and failure to seek protection in available jurisdictions demonstrate lack of subjective fear; accordingly the Board concluded there is no serious possibility of persecution and no risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim fails under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TA5-09508
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister; Designated Representative: Refugee Protection Officer (Designated Representative)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Re Availment, Failure to Claim Elsewhere, Political Opinion, Burden to Produce Documents, Procedural Rules (rule 7)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Re Availment +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Refugee Protection Officer (Designated Representative)

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee within s.96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's account of assault by Zanu-PF youths

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's allegations were found not credible due to lack of corroborative evidence and internal inconsistencies; his voluntary return to Zimbabwe on two occasions and failure to seek protection in available jurisdictions demonstrate lack of subjective fear; accordingly the Board concluded there is no serious possibility of persecution and no risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim fails under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA