TB5-07518

TB5-07518

The panel dismissed the claim because on a balance of probabilities the claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated, significant contradictions and implausibilities (including failure to claim asylum in the US, inconsistent accounts about relatives, and unreliable documents) rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; therefore there was no subjective fear nor a reasonable chance of persecution or personal risk to life or torture, and the claim failed under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-07518
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim (irpa) / Decision and Reasons (rpd Hearing)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97(1) IRPA, Well‑founded Fear, Subjective Fear, Credibility Assessment, Safe Third Country, Baad (exchange/compensation) Marriages, Danger of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Section 96 IRPA Section 97(1) IRPA +6 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim (irpa) / Decision and Reasons (rpd Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant's narrative and documents
  2. 2 Whether claimant has subjective fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether there is an objective, well‑founded risk tied to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel dismissed the claim because on a balance of probabilities the claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated, significant contradictions and implausibilities (including failure to claim asylum in the US, inconsistent accounts about relatives, and unreliable documents) rebutted the presumption of truthfulness; therefore there was no subjective fear nor a reasonable chance of persecution or personal risk to life or torture, and the claim failed under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.