TB2-06631

TB2-06631

The claimant's credibility was sufficiently undermined by material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions in his narratives and testimony; on the totality of evidence, including objective country material showing Slovakia is a functioning democracy taking steps to protect Roma, the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and thus did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB2-06631
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Assessment Persecution Roma Discrimination

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's testimony and amended narrative are credible
  2. 2 Whether the alleged incidents amount to persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Slovakia is available and was exhausted or reasonably attainable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's credibility was sufficiently undermined by material inconsistencies and unexplained omissions in his narratives and testimony; on the totality of evidence, including objective country material showing Slovakia is a functioning democracy taking steps to protect Roma, the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and thus did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or need for protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's refugee protection claim under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA