MA5-01247

MA5-01247

The claimant's evidence was found not credible due to multiple inconsistencies, evasive testimony and lack of probative documentary support; coupled with the panel's assessment of country conditions (ongoing ceasefire) and claimant's failure to seek protection when abroad, the claimant did not establish a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MA5-01247
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Refugee Protection Officer: Gary Dukeshire; Adjudicator: Farid Osmane
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection Division, Harassment, Guerilla Warfare, Detention, Safe Third Country, Sojourning, False Statements, Contradictions, Personal Information Form, Testimony, Male, Negative, Sri Lanka
Source Language
english
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Division Harassment Guerilla Warfare Detention Safe Third Country +8 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Gary Dukeshire

Refugee Protection Officer

Farid Osmane

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA (risk of torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Credibility and reliability of the claimant's testimony and documents

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was found not credible due to multiple inconsistencies, evasive testimony and lack of probative documentary support; coupled with the panel's assessment of country conditions (ongoing ceasefire) and claimant's failure to seek protection when abroad, the claimant did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk under s.97 IRPA, so the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • The claim of Mr. XXXXX XXXXX is rejected.