TB5-08925

TB5-08925

The claim is dismissed because material, unreconciled inconsistencies in the claimant's accounts across sworn testimony, written forms and multiple official interviews rebut the presumption of truth; on the balance of probabilities the Tribunal does not accept that the claimant or her husband were persecuted as alleged and therefore she does not qualify as a Convention refugee under s.96 nor as a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB5-08925
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.96; Alternative S.97(1)) / Final Decision Following Hearing and Reasons
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Forced Disappearance, Country Conditions, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Forced Disappearance Country Conditions Convention Refugee Determination

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.96; Alternative S.97(1)) / Final Decision Following Hearing and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because material, unreconciled inconsistencies in the claimant's accounts across sworn testimony, written forms and multiple official interviews rebut the presumption of truth; on the balance of probabilities the Tribunal does not accept that the claimant or her husband were persecuted as alleged and therefore she does not qualify as a Convention refugee under s.96 nor as a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA