MB7-05270

MB7-05270

The panel rejected the claimant's protection claims because significant omissions, contradictions and implausible explanations in her testimony and BOC forms, together with the lack of probative supporting documentation in light of those credibility findings, meant she failed on a balance of probabilities to establish a well-founded fear constituting a Convention refugee claim under s.96 or entitlement to protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MB7-05270
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision (hearing October 9, 2018; Reasons and Decision December 19, 2018)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection are rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA; dependent son's claim similarly rejected.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Basis of Claim Form Omissions, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)), Allegations Against Former Counsel, Internal Relocation/residual Profile, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Credibility Assessment Basis of Claim Form Omissions Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s.97(1)) Allegations Against Former Counsel Internal Relocation/residual Profile +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Minor Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision (hearing October 9, 2018; Reasons and Decision December 19, 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's allegations are credible and supported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's protection claims because significant omissions, contradictions and implausible explanations in her testimony and BOC forms, together with the lack of probative supporting documentation in light of those credibility findings, meant she failed on a balance of probabilities to establish a well-founded fear constituting a Convention refugee claim under s.96 or entitlement to protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection are rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA; dependent son's claim similarly rejected.

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX rejected
  • Claim for refugee protection by dependent minor XXXX XXXX XXXX rejected