TB1-16553

TB1-16553

The panel rejected the claims because it found central credibility deficiencies (inconsistent accounts, lack of corroboration, implausible details), gave limited weight to medical and witness letters, and concluded on the evidence, including objective country information, that there was not a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a balance of probabilities risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if the claimants returned to Turkey today.

Citation
TB1-16553
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX (A.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Sur Place Claim, Religious Discrimination (alevi), Political Opinion, Risk of Torture, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Sur Place Claim Religious Discrimination (alevi) Political Opinion +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX (A.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are credible on central allegations
  2. 2 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under IRPA ss.96-97
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because it found central credibility deficiencies (inconsistent accounts, lack of corroboration, implausible details), gave limited weight to medical and witness letters, and concluded on the evidence, including objective country information, that there was not a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a balance of probabilities risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if the claimants returned to Turkey today.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division denies refugee protection claims filed by the named claimants