TB5-09336

TB5-09336

The claimants failed to discharge the civil burden of proof because their testimony contained material inconsistencies, evasive answers and embellishments; given those credibility findings and country information, the panel found at most a mere possibility of harm, not a reasonable chance of persecution or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB5-09336
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (age 16): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (age 15): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (age 11): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (age 7): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (hearing and Reasons)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Persecution/torture, Burden of Proof
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Credibility Assessment Risk of Persecution/torture Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (age 16)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (age 15)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (age 11)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (age 7)

Minister (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (hearing and Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees within definition of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA (risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment/torture)
  3. 3 Whether claimants met burden of proof on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to discharge the civil burden of proof because their testimony contained material inconsistencies, evasive answers and embellishments; given those credibility findings and country information, the panel found at most a mere possibility of harm, not a reasonable chance of persecution or substantial-ground risk of torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment, and therefore the claims under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Reasons and decision dated January 4, 2016