TB6-14372

TB6-14372

The panel found material aspects of the claimant's account not credible — notably the hospital document was irregular and treated as fraudulent, corroborating evidence of continued MDC-T membership and ongoing targeting was absent or inconsistent, and the claimant made insufficient efforts to obtain corroboration — and on that basis rejected the claim under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB6-14372
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Merits Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Document Authenticity, Political Opinion/membership
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Document Authenticity Political Opinion/membership

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

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Merits Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found material aspects of the claimant's account not credible — notably the hospital document was irregular and treated as fraudulent, corroborating evidence of continued MDC-T membership and ongoing targeting was absent or inconsistent, and the claimant made insufficient efforts to obtain corroboration — and on that basis rejected the claim under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.