TB0-07164

TB0-07164

The Panel rejected the claim based on an adverse credibility finding arising from multiple unexplained inconsistencies and unreliable documentary evidence; because the claim was not credible, the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution under section 96 or a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment under section 97(1), and there were no substantial grounds to believe she would face torture on return.

Citation
TB0-07164
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Gender Related Persecution, Domestic Violence, Persecution by Family Members, Credibility and Inconsistency, Visa Issues, Zimbabwe
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Gender Related Persecution Domestic Violence Persecution by Family Members +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces risk of torture on return

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim based on an adverse credibility finding arising from multiple unexplained inconsistencies and unreliable documentary evidence; because the claim was not credible, the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution under section 96 or a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment under section 97(1), and there were no substantial grounds to believe she would face torture on return.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected.
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.