TB2-06010

TB2-06010

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible on material facts, identified significant uncorroborated allegations and implausible explanations that undermined subjective fear, and concluded that, given the claimants profile and country evidence, there was no serious possibility of persecution under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TB2-06010
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Dependent Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision and Reasons (merits)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Definition, Nexus to Protected Ground, Country Conditions (turkey), Alevi Kurdish Discrimination, Corroboration of Claims, Sexual Assault Allegation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Definition Nexus to Protected Ground Country Conditions (turkey) Alevi Kurdish Discrimination +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Child

Minister (Citizenship and Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Decision and Reasons (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is credible on material aspects of her story
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has established nexus to a Convention ground (Alevi Kurdish ethnicity)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution or is a person in need of protection under IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible on material facts, identified significant uncorroborated allegations and implausible explanations that undermined subjective fear, and concluded that, given the claimants profile and country evidence, there was no serious possibility of persecution under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed by Refugee Protection Division (decision dated January 19, 2015)