MB7-01818

MB7-01818

The panel found credibility concerns (vagueness, inconsistencies, and apparent embellishment) and insufficient evidence of a nexus between the claimant's mistreatment and a Convention ground; documentary country evidence did not support persecution of neutral civilians. Therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk under s.97(1), and the claim was denied.

Citation
MB7-01818
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative (mother): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Reasons and Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim denied
Legal Topics
Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Child Claimant
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Child Claimant

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative (mother)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Reasons and Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found credibility concerns (vagueness, inconsistencies, and apparent embellishment) and insufficient evidence of a nexus between the claimant's mistreatment and a Convention ground; documentary country evidence did not support persecution of neutral civilians. Therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 or a risk under s.97(1), and the claim was denied.

Court Disposition

Claim denied

Orders

  • Claimant is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Claimant is not a person in need of protection within the meaning of section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act