MB6-06136

MB6-06136

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face a danger to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned; credibility findings (inconsistent testimony about the alleged assault and threats), lack of probative corroboration, and documentary evidence (medical report showing arthritis, denial of videoconference request, absence of threats to other family members) meant the threshold under subsection 97(1)(b) was not met and section 96 could not be applied based on the asserted family connection.

Citation
MB6-06136
Parties
Claimant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant Step Granddaughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (oral Reasons Rendered; Written Reasons Issued)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Risk of Persecution, Protection Under Subsection 97(1)(b) of IRPA, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Risk of Persecution Protection Under Subsection 97(1)(b) of IRPA Credibility Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant Step Granddaughter

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant Daughter

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (oral Reasons Rendered; Written Reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether membership in the family constitutes a particular social group for these claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they would face a danger to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned; credibility findings (inconsistent testimony about the alleged assault and threats), lack of probative corroboration, and documentary evidence (medical report showing arthritis, denial of videoconference request, absence of threats to other family members) meant the threshold under subsection 97(1)(b) was not met and section 96 could not be applied based on the asserted family connection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division denies the claimants' refugee protection claim and issues a negative decision