TA8-03830

TA8-03830

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to provide credible, consistent, and corroborated evidence on pivotal elements of their claims, and the objective country evidence (including the 2008 power-sharing agreement) did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life, cruel or unusual treatment, or torture on return; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA8-03830
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Secondary Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for the Claimants: Frank Bernhardt; Respondent: Minister (Canada); Panel Member / Decision Maker: Sudabeh Mashkuri
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Political Opinion, Particular Social Group (family of Politically Active Person), Gender Based Persecution, Country Conditions, Change of Circumstances
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Political Opinion +4 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 XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Secondary Claimant (daughter)

Frank Bernhardt

Counsel for the Claimants

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Sudabeh Mashkuri

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimants' oral and written testimony
  2. 2 Whether claimants have well-founded fear of persecution based on perceived political opinion
  3. 3 Whether claimants are members of a particular social group (family of politically active relative)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants failed to provide credible, consistent, and corroborated evidence on pivotal elements of their claims, and the objective country evidence (including the 2008 power-sharing agreement) did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk to life, cruel or unusual treatment, or torture on return; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; no protection order granted