TA5-06246

TA5-06246

The claim was rejected because the claimant's testimony was not credible due to inconsistencies and omissions, there was insufficient objective evidence of a real risk of persecution or torture on return, the claimant's criminality and timing of the claim undermined subjective fear, and documentary evidence indicated available reintegration assistance; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA5-06246
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXX XXXXXX); Respondent: Minister (Immigration); Refugee Protection Officer: A. Cedrez; Decision Maker: Joan Montgomery
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and S.97 Protection) Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Persecution, Deportation Order, Criminality, Minister's Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Persecution +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX XXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXX XXXXXX)

Claimant

Minister (Immigration)

Respondent

A. Cedrez

Refugee Protection Officer

Joan Montgomery

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and S.97 Protection) Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant's testimony was not credible due to inconsistencies and omissions, there was insufficient objective evidence of a real risk of persecution or torture on return, the claimant's criminality and timing of the claim undermined subjective fear, and documentary evidence indicated available reintegration assistance; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to Subsections 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  • No protection granted; removal proceedings may continue.