MA9-12155

MA9-12155

Panel concluded claimant's credibility was sufficiently undermined by implausibilities and unexplained omissions in his PIF and testimony, and objective documentary evidence showed family members were not targeted and incidents were isolated; therefore claimant failed to establish a reasonable chance of persecution on a Convention ground or personal risk under s.97(1) IRPA, and the claim was rejected.

Citation
MA9-12155
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Non State Actor Risk, Cumulative Discrimination, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Persecution Non State Actor Risk Cumulative Discrimination Burden of Proof

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account and omissions in PIF

Ratio Decidendi

Panel concluded claimant's credibility was sufficiently undermined by implausibilities and unexplained omissions in his PIF and testimony, and objective documentary evidence showed family members were not targeted and incidents were isolated; therefore claimant failed to establish a reasonable chance of persecution on a Convention ground or personal risk under s.97(1) IRPA, and the claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected