TA9-14418

TA9-14418

The claim was dismissed because the claimant's accounts contained multiple, significant unexplained inconsistencies and omissions that fatally undermined his credibility; as a result he failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a well-founded fear of persecution under s.96 or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture under s.97; the adjournment request for counsel was properly denied for lack of exceptional circumstances.

Citation
TA9-14418
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee protection claim denied; not a Convention refugee; not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Adjournment/right to Counsel, Political Opinion, Persecution, Risk of Torture, Gang Violence, Forced Recruitment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Adjournment/right to Counsel 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant established a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the claimant's accounts contained multiple, significant unexplained inconsistencies and omissions that fatally undermined his credibility; as a result he failed to establish on a balance of probabilities a well-founded fear of persecution under s.96 or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture under s.97; the adjournment request for counsel was properly denied for lack of exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim denied; not a Convention refugee; not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed
  • Claimant not found to be at risk under sections 96 or 97 of IRPA