MA6-05758

MA6-05758

The panel rejected the refugee protection claims because the claimant failed to meet the required standard of credibility and failed to provide necessary documentary support (including translations), her testimony and written narrative contained material contradictions and omissions, and key factual allegations (notably the alleged gang leadership and nexus) were implausible in light of country documentation; accordingly she did not establish that she was a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA6-05758
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refused: refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Domestic Violence, Identity and Translation of Documents, PIF Disclosure Obligations, Gang Related Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Violence Credibility Assessment Gender Related Persecution Domestic Violence Identity and Translation of Documents PIF Disclosure Obligations +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b)
  2. 2 Credibility of the claimant's testimony and written narrative
  3. 3 Sufficiency and authenticity of identity documentation and translations

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee protection claims because the claimant failed to meet the required standard of credibility and failed to provide necessary documentary support (including translations), her testimony and written narrative contained material contradictions and omissions, and key factual allegations (notably the alleged gang leadership and nexus) were implausible in light of country documentation; accordingly she did not establish that she was a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refused: refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims by the minor children XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are dismissed.
  • The refugee protection claims filed by XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are rejected.