MB2-05365

MB2-05365

The claimant's testimony was not credible because her conduct (remaining in Canada previously despite alleged risk and delaying filing on latest arrival) was inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution; she therefore failed to discharge the burden under s.96 IRPA to show a serious possibility of persecution, and consequently the claim for refugee protection and any s.97 relief were rejected.

Citation
MB2-05365
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant not found to be Convention refugee or person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Credibility Assessment, Burden of Proof, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution for Religious Practice
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Credibility Assessment Burden of Proof Internal Flight Alternative +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant was persecuted in China for practising Falun Gong
  2. 2 Whether claimant discharged burden under s.96 IRPA to show serious possibility of persecution
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant given delays and behaviour inconsistent with fear

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony was not credible because her conduct (remaining in Canada previously despite alleged risk and delaying filing on latest arrival) was inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution; she therefore failed to discharge the burden under s.96 IRPA to show a serious possibility of persecution, and consequently the claim for refugee protection and any s.97 relief were rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant not found to be Convention refugee or person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX is rejected (decision dated May 9, 2014)