MB8-13067

MB8-13067

The tribunal found the claimant's testimony materially inconsistent and omitted the central ground of religious persecution at the port of entry, combined with conflicting accounts of who assaulted him and why and an unexplained prolonged stay in France; these factors rendered him not credible and he therefore failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
MB8-13067
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (denied)
Outcome
Claim denied; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Religious Persecution, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Religious Persecution Credibility Assessment +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (denied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee on the ground of religion
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection (risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Assessment of claimant credibility in light of inconsistencies and omissions at port of entry

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the claimant's testimony materially inconsistent and omitted the central ground of religious persecution at the port of entry, combined with conflicting accounts of who assaulted him and why and an unexplained prolonged stay in France; these factors rendered him not credible and he therefore failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

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