MB7-02979

MB7-02979

The claims were rejected because the tribunal determined the appropriate country of reference (Jordan for the mother; Saudi Arabia for the stateless child) and found the evidence and testimony did not establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor a risk to life/torture under s.97(1) of IRPA; key facts (passport renewal, lack of corroboration, testimonial inconsistencies) undermined the claimants' credibility and made fears speculative.

Citation
MB7-02979
Parties
Claimant: Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Under IRPA / Decision and Reasons (merits Hearing)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Country of Reference, Statelessness, Loss of Citizenship, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Nationality Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Country of Reference Statelessness +2 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Under IRPA / Decision and Reasons (merits Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct country of reference for each claimant
  2. 2 Whether claimants established a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants face a risk to life or torture or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the tribunal determined the appropriate country of reference (Jordan for the mother; Saudi Arabia for the stateless child) and found the evidence and testimony did not establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor a risk to life/torture under s.97(1) of IRPA; key facts (passport renewal, lack of corroboration, testimonial inconsistencies) undermined the claimants' credibility and made fears speculative.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims are rejected.