TB2-14989

TB2-14989

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof because the tribunal found his testimony not credible, documentary evidence showed the alleged main persecutor lost power after 2015, and there was insufficient corroboration of any ongoing risk from police or political actors; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Citation
TB2-14989
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Decision Following Merits Hearing (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim dismissed: claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Change of Circumstances
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Change of Circumstances

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

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Decision Following Merits Hearing (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof because the tribunal found his testimony not credible, documentary evidence showed the alleged main persecutor lost power after 2015, and there was insufficient corroboration of any ongoing risk from police or political actors; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act