TA5-16503

TA5-16503

The decision-maker rejected the claims because the claimants' testimonies were inconsistent, implausible and lacked corroboration; their conduct (including failure to seek asylum in the USA and renewal of a Zimbabwe passport) undermined subjective fear; accordingly there was no well-founded fear of persecution and no substantial grounds to believe they would face torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment, so claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA5-16503
Parties
Claimant Principal: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Minor: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Section 97(1) Protection, Credibility Assessment, Safe Third Country/failure to Claim Elsewhere, Political Opinion, Forced Recruitment/ National Youth Training, Child Refugee Claim, Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Section 97(1) Protection Credibility Assessment Safe Third Country/failure to Claim Elsewhere Political Opinion +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Principal

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Minor

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and corroboration of allegations of political persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The decision-maker rejected the claims because the claimants' testimonies were inconsistent, implausible and lacked corroboration; their conduct (including failure to seek asylum in the USA and renewal of a Zimbabwe passport) undermined subjective fear; accordingly there was no well-founded fear of persecution and no substantial grounds to believe they would face torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment, so claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims rejected