TB1-18842

TB1-18842

The Tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant's credibility was severely undermined by contradictions, omissions (notably a fabricated 2012 visit by authorities), vagueness about detention surroundings, failure to provide corroborating evidence, and unexplained delay in making the refugee claim; on the balance of probabilities these defects prevent a finding that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-18842
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Definition, Protection Section 97(1), Convention Against Torture, Delay in Claiming, Corroboration and Documentary Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Definition Protection Section 97(1) Convention Against Torture Delay in Claiming +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Hearing and Decision on Merits

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 and PIF

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant's credibility was severely undermined by contradictions, omissions (notably a fabricated 2012 visit by authorities), vagueness about detention surroundings, failure to provide corroborating evidence, and unexplained delay in making the refugee claim; on the balance of probabilities these defects prevent a finding that he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim for refugee protection (decision dated June 12, 2013)