TB0-11901

TB0-11901

The panel found the claimant's oral evidence inconsistent and not credible, and there were no original or corroborative documents to establish SLA membership; on the balance of probabilities the claimant did not serve in the SLA, so the Minister's exclusion application under Article 1F(A) fails but the refugee claim is rejected under IRPA ss.96 and 97 for lack of credible evidence of risk.

Citation
TB0-11901
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim With Exclusion Application Under Article 1 F(a) of the 1951 Convention / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected by RPD; Minister's exclusion application under Article 1F(A) dismissed
Legal Topics
Forced Recruitment, Military Service, Convention Refugee Exclusion (article 1 F), Credibility Assessment, Section 97 IRPA Acceptance, Documentary Evidence, Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Law Forced Recruitment Military Service Convention Refugee Exclusion (article 1 F) Credibility Assessment Section 97 IRPA Acceptance +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim With Exclusion Application Under Article 1 F(a) of the 1951 Convention / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a member of the South Lebanon Army (SLA) during 1997–1999
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be excluded from protection under Article 1F(A) of the 1951 Convention
  3. 3 Whether the claimant meets the definition of a Convention refugee or should be accepted under s.97 IRPA due to risk linked to relatives

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's oral evidence inconsistent and not credible, and there were no original or corroborative documents to establish SLA membership; on the balance of probabilities the claimant did not serve in the SLA, so the Minister's exclusion application under Article 1F(A) fails but the refugee claim is rejected under IRPA ss.96 and 97 for lack of credible evidence of risk.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected by RPD; Minister's exclusion application under Article 1F(A) dismissed

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Minister's application for exclusion under Article 1F(A) of the 1951 Convention dismissed