TB1-00486

TB1-00486

Claim rejected because the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof: material inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of corroboration undermined credibility; no nexus to a Convention ground was established; delay undermined subjective fear; and admitted benefit from drug proceeds raised criminality concerns; therefore no serious possibility of persecution nor risk under s.97(1) IRPA was proven.

Citation
TB1-00486
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Redetermination / Decision on Redetermination (peremptory De Novo Hearing)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Protection Claim Under S.97 IRPA, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Exclusion Under Article 1 F(b), Delay in Claiming Asylum, Nexus
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Criminal Law Exclusion Law Convention Refugee Protection Claim Under S.97 IRPA Credibility Assessment State Protection +3 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Redetermination / Decision on Redetermination (peremptory De Novo Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces persecution or risk to life/torture/CRUMP on return
  2. 2 Whether there is nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Claim rejected because the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof: material inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of corroboration undermined credibility; no nexus to a Convention ground was established; delay undermined subjective fear; and admitted benefit from drug proceeds raised criminality concerns; therefore no serious possibility of persecution nor risk under s.97(1) IRPA was proven.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected (Decision dated January 21, 2019)