TA6-09549

TA6-09549

Material, unexplained inconsistencies between the claimant's Port of Entry statement and her Personal Information Form, together with internal contradictions, lack of corroborative evidence and failure to seek protection in transit countries, undermine credibility and prevent the claimant from establishing she is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA; country risks are generalized and do not amount to substantial grounds for individualized persecution, torture or risk to life.

Citation
TA6-09549
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility and Corroboration, Port of Entry Statements Vs PIF, Country Conditions, Section 97(1) Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility and Corroboration Port of Entry Statements Vs PIF Country Conditions +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and consistent

Ratio Decidendi

Material, unexplained inconsistencies between the claimant's Port of Entry statement and her Personal Information Form, together with internal contradictions, lack of corroborative evidence and failure to seek protection in transit countries, undermine credibility and prevent the claimant from establishing she is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA; country risks are generalized and do not amount to substantial grounds for individualized persecution, torture or risk to life.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed
  • No protection granted under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; removal to Burundi not found to expose claimant to torture or risk to life