MB4-04565

MB4-04565

The panel rejected the refugee protection claim because the claimant's testimony was found not credible: cumulative implausibilities and inconsistencies (escape from arrest despite many arrests at his home, selective production of police summonses, family returning to and remaining in Bujumbura, continued schooling while allegedly in hiding, failure to corroborate residence and threats, and delay in departing despite a US visa) meant he did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution under s.96 or a need for protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
MB4-04565
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada Border Services Agency); Designated Representative: Simbakwira, Henri
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Need for Protection, Credibility Assessment, Political Opinion, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Need for Protection Credibility Assessment Political Opinion 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada Border Services Agency)

Respondent

Simbakwira, Henri

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible and sufficiently corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee protection claim because the claimant's testimony was found not credible: cumulative implausibilities and inconsistencies (escape from arrest despite many arrests at his home, selective production of police summonses, family returning to and remaining in Bujumbura, continued schooling while allegedly in hiding, failure to corroborate residence and threats, and delay in departing despite a US visa) meant he did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution under s.96 or a need for protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected