TB5-03044

TB5-03044

The panel rejected the claim because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant's evidence about his bisexual sexual identity and same-sex relationships was not credible due to repeated omissions, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration (including an unverified maternal letter), and therefore he failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
TB5-03044
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (credibility Determination)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Risk of Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Sexual Orientation Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Risk of Persecution

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division (credibility Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has established bisexual sexual identity

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant's evidence about his bisexual sexual identity and same-sex relationships was not credible due to repeated omissions, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration (including an unverified maternal letter), and therefore he failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.