MA7-07373

MA7-07373

The claimant's inconsistent evidence and unexplained failure to seek protection in Spain, Venezuela or during a prolonged stay in the United States fatally undermined the subjective element of fear and credibility, and there was no persuasive evidence of a personal risk under s.97; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA7-07373
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Imputed Political Opinion, Credibility, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries, Delay in Making Claim, Subjective and Objective Elements of Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Imputed Political Opinion Credibility Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries Delay in Making Claim Subjective and Objective Elements of Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on imputed political opinion
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 (risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether claimant's failure to seek protection in other countries and inconsistencies undermine credibility and subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's inconsistent evidence and unexplained failure to seek protection in Spain, Venezuela or during a prolonged stay in the United States fatally undermined the subjective element of fear and credibility, and there was no persuasive evidence of a personal risk under s.97; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected (decision dated April 23, 2010)