MB2-02569

MB2-02569

Because the panel found multiple material inconsistencies and implausibilities in the claimant's testimony (boats, circumstances of imprisonment/release versus escape, implausible travel route, inconsistent US asylum account and motive to leave the US), those adverse credibility findings undermined the core of his protection claim and the claimant failed to establish he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96/97 IRPA.

Citation
MB2-02569
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (rpd)
Outcome
Claimant rejected; not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Persecution, Claimant Travel and Identity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Asylum Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Risk of Persecution Claimant Travel and Identity

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's testimony is credible and consistent
  3. 3 Whether claimant established a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk of serious harm from the Sri Lankan army/paramilitary

Ratio Decidendi

Because the panel found multiple material inconsistencies and implausibilities in the claimant's testimony (boats, circumstances of imprisonment/release versus escape, implausible travel route, inconsistent US asylum account and motive to leave the US), those adverse credibility findings undermined the core of his protection claim and the claimant failed to establish he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96/97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claimant rejected; not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected