AA2-00085

AA2-00085

Because the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he is Roma or perceived to be Roma, and because his testimony and documentary evidence were found not credible or were uncorroborated (including implausible explanations for delay and re‑availment of protection), the panel concluded he did not have a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground and therefore is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
AA2-00085
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility, Identity, Ethnic Persecution, Delay in Claiming, Re‑availment of State Protection, Well‑founded Fear, Roma/ethnicity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Credibility Identity Ethnic Persecution Delay in Claiming Re‑availment of State Protection +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Claim / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is part Roma or perceived to be Roma
  2. 2 Whether the claimant established a well‑founded fear of persecution on account of ethnicity
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he is Roma or perceived to be Roma, and because his testimony and documentary evidence were found not credible or were uncorroborated (including implausible explanations for delay and re‑availment of protection), the panel concluded he did not have a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground and therefore is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed
  • Claimant found not to have established membership or perception of a Convention ground