TB2-00209

TB2-00209

The claim is dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant's evidence not credible on multiple pivotal points (omissions in PIF, contradictions in testimony, implausible explanations), which undermined both the subjective element (delay and lack of subjective fear) and the establishment of an objective risk tied to her sexual orientation; consequently she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB2-00209
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision Following Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.96 or s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Sexual Orientation, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Delay in Claiming Protection, Convention Against Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Sexual Orientation Membership in a Particular Social Group Delay in Claiming Protection Convention Against Torture

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX)

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Decision Following Merits 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 and supporting documents

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant's evidence not credible on multiple pivotal points (omissions in PIF, contradictions in testimony, implausible explanations), which undermined both the subjective element (delay and lack of subjective fear) and the establishment of an objective risk tied to her sexual orientation; consequently she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.96 or s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ss.96 and 97(1).