TA1-27855

TA1-27855

Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof and was found not credible because he produced no documentary evidence of his merchant status or presence in South Kivu and gave implausible testimony about his abduction, escape and travel; therefore he did not meet the definitions in sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of IRPA and the claim is dismissed.

Citation
TA1-27855
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Georges Gustave; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Persecution, Imputed Political Opinion, Risk of Torture, Documentary Evidence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Human Rights Torture/cat Risk Credibility Persecution Imputed Political Opinion Risk of Torture +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Georges Gustave

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) and (b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant established nexus between alleged persecution and imputed political opinion

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof and was found not credible because he produced no documentary evidence of his merchant status or presence in South Kivu and gave implausible testimony about his abduction, escape and travel; therefore he did not meet the definitions in sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of IRPA and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied under sections 96 and 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act