MA7-04366

MA7-04366

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof: their testimony contained material inconsistencies and late additions, they failed to produce supporting documentation or medical reports, they did not seek state protection, and reasonable internal flight alternatives existed; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MA7-04366
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Presiding Member: Me Michel Jobin; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Evidence Production, Delay in Leaving Country, Family
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative State Protection +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Child

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Me Michel Jobin

Presiding Member

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof: their testimony contained material inconsistencies and late additions, they failed to produce supporting documentation or medical reports, they did not seek state protection, and reasonable internal flight alternatives existed; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • The panel rejects the claimants' claims for refugee protection under ss.96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.