MB1-00683

MB1-00683

The claimant's testimony was found not credible due to numerous contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies between her narrative, testimony and documentary evidence (visa file, port-of-entry form, police report); because she failed to establish subjective fear and failed to meet the applicable standards ('serious possibility' for Convention refugee and 'balance of probabilities' for s.97(1)(b)), the panel rejected her claims for refugee protection and protection under paragraph 97(1)(b).

Citation
MB1-00683
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following RPD Hearing
Outcome
Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Gender Related Persecution Burden of Proof

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following RPD Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under paragraph 97(1)(b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's allegations of persecution and threats

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony was found not credible due to numerous contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies between her narrative, testimony and documentary evidence (visa file, port-of-entry form, police report); because she failed to establish subjective fear and failed to meet the applicable standards ('serious possibility' for Convention refugee and 'balance of probabilities' for s.97(1)(b)), the panel rejected her claims for refugee protection and protection under paragraph 97(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected.