TB0-00419

TB0-00419

The panel made multiple negative credibility findings based on inconsistent or uncorroborated testimony and absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence (notably the 2009 medical letter, lack of reliable corroboration of conversion and attacks and inconsistent statements on the refugee claim form); given these credibility findings and failure to produce independent credible documentary evidence, the claimants did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection and the claims were rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-00419
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Protection From Persecution, Credibility Findings, Religion Based Persecution, Persecution by Family Members, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Protection From Persecution Credibility Findings Religion Based Persecution Persecution by Family Members +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have well-founded fear of persecution on Convention ground (religion)
  2. 2 Credibility of claimants' account and supporting documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel made multiple negative credibility findings based on inconsistent or uncorroborated testimony and absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence (notably the 2009 medical letter, lack of reliable corroboration of conversion and attacks and inconsistent statements on the refugee claim form); given these credibility findings and failure to produce independent credible documentary evidence, the claimants did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection and the claims were rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act