MB6-00736

MB6-00736

The claimant failed to meet the required standard because his testimony was inconsistent, vague and uncorroborated and objective evidence did not establish a real likelihood he personally would be persecuted or tortured on return; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96/97(1).

Citation
MB6-00736
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96/97) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96/97) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to meet the required standard because his testimony was inconsistent, vague and uncorroborated and objective evidence did not establish a real likelihood he personally would be persecuted or tortured on return; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96/97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected; claimant not found to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 or 97(1).