MB6-01728

MB6-01728

The panel found the claimants' credibility fatally undermined by an uncontradicted travel itinerary dated March 23, 2016 which contradicted their testimony that departure was arranged after March 25; because of this material contradiction and insufficient independent corroboration the claimants failed to establish a well‑founded fear or risk under section 96 or subsection 97(1). Additionally, the female claimants failed to show Argentine citizenship was beyond their power to obtain, so Argentina is the country of reference and they did not demonstrate a real risk there.

Citation
MB6-01728
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Reasons and Decision (hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Findings, Country of Reference, Citizenship by Descent, Well Founded Fear
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Nationality Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Findings Country of Reference +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Reasons and Decision (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant testimony in light of documentary contradiction

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants' credibility fatally undermined by an uncontradicted travel itinerary dated March 23, 2016 which contradicted their testimony that departure was arranged after March 25; because of this material contradiction and insufficient independent corroboration the claimants failed to establish a well‑founded fear or risk under section 96 or subsection 97(1). Additionally, the female claimants failed to show Argentine citizenship was beyond their power to obtain, so Argentina is the country of reference and they did not demonstrate a real risk there.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA and are not persons in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA; refugee protection claims dismissed