VB3-02075

VB3-02075

The presumption of credibility was rebutted by multiple factors — initial misrepresentation about citizenship, lack of corroborative travel and passport evidence, questionable attestations, public social media exposure and implausible protective conduct — and those credibility and corroboration failures negate a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life or torture; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Act.

Citation
VB3-02075
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / RPD Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Blood Feud, Persecution, Risk to Life, Gender Based Persecution, Corroboration of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Asylum Human Rights Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Blood Feud Persecution Risk to Life +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / RPD Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a personal risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether claimants face a danger of torture

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of credibility was rebutted by multiple factors — initial misrepresentation about citizenship, lack of corroborative travel and passport evidence, questionable attestations, public social media exposure and implausible protective conduct — and those credibility and corroboration failures negate a well-founded fear of persecution or risk to life or torture; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection