TB3-02456

TB3-02456

The claimant's evidence was not credible due to implausible and inconsistent accounts about passport acquisition and travel, documentary and country evidence showed he obtained and used a passport to leave legally and was not wanted by authorities, and he lacked a profile to attract state or EPDP persecution; therefore he failed, on the balance of probabilities, to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a real risk under ss.96/97 IRPA and the claim is dismissed.

Citation
TB3-02456
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Government)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing Decision With Reasons (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Risk of Persecution, Risk of Torture/cruel and Unusual Treatment, Country Conditions, Identity and Passport Evidence, Political/paramilitary Threat (epdp)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Risk of Persecution Risk of Torture/cruel and Unusual Treatment Country Conditions Identity and Passport Evidence +1 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Government)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing Decision With Reasons (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant proved a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimant would face risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or torture on return
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence was credible and trustworthy

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was not credible due to implausible and inconsistent accounts about passport acquisition and travel, documentary and country evidence showed he obtained and used a passport to leave legally and was not wanted by authorities, and he lacked a profile to attract state or EPDP persecution; therefore he failed, on the balance of probabilities, to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a real risk under ss.96/97 IRPA and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act