TB1-20460

TB1-20460

The Panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony and narratives contained material inconsistencies and unexplained additions, lacked independent corroboration, and included implausibilities (including failure to seek asylum while in the U.K.); the limited medical evidence did not establish causation; on the balance of probabilities removal to Afghanistan would not expose the claimant to persecution or torture, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
TB1-20460
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, S.96 IRPA, S.97 IRPA, Persecution, Torture, Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility S.96 IRPA S.97 IRPA +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and sufficiently corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony and narratives contained material inconsistencies and unexplained additions, lacked independent corroboration, and included implausibilities (including failure to seek asylum while in the U.K.); the limited medical evidence did not establish causation; on the balance of probabilities removal to Afghanistan would not expose the claimant to persecution or torture, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97