TB2-11996

TB2-11996

On a balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claimant's account as lacking credibility and found the documentary and forensic evidence showed suspects' arrest independent of his testimony; there was no persuasive evidence of threats or failed state protection and the claimant's delay in filing undermined subjective fear—therefore the claim fails under IRPA sections 96 and 97.

Citation
TB2-11996
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96, 97) / Hearing and Final Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Delay in Claiming
Source Language
English

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96, 97) / Hearing and Final Decision (reasons Issued)

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a subjective and objectively well‑founded fear of persecution or harm
  3. 3 Whether state protection was unavailable or inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

On a balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claimant's account as lacking credibility and found the documentary and forensic evidence showed suspects' arrest independent of his testimony; there was no persuasive evidence of threats or failed state protection and the claimant's delay in filing undermined subjective fear—therefore the claim fails under IRPA sections 96 and 97.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected