TB7-22813

TB7-22813

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants' testimony contained material inconsistencies and embellishments undermining credibility, corroborative family evidence was unreliable, and the evidence failed to show a personalized, Convention‑protected risk on return; at most a generalized risk of extortion was shown, which does not meet the threshold for refugee protection or need for protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB7-22813
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Refugee Claim / Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Well Founded Fear, Persecution, Sexual Assault, Extortion, Prevention of Terrorism Act
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Well Founded Fear Persecution +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Refugee Claim / Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' evidence and consistency of their accounts

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimants' testimony contained material inconsistencies and embellishments undermining credibility, corroborative family evidence was unreliable, and the evidence failed to show a personalized, Convention‑protected risk on return; at most a generalized risk of extortion was shown, which does not meet the threshold for refugee protection or need for protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA