VA6-02174

VA6-02174

The claimant's allegations were rejected because he was found not credible: material contradictions with his initial statement, a complete absence of corroboration, and evidence of deliberate manipulation of immigration processes rebutted the presumption of truth and meant he failed to meet the burden under ss.96...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
VA6-02174
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (sur Place) / Decision (refugee Protection Division Hearing and Reasons)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1)(a),(b) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Sur Place Claim, Credibility Assessment, Political Opinion, Persecution, Risk of Torture/non Refoulement
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Sur Place Claim Credibility Assessment Political Opinion Persecution +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (sur Place) / Decision (refugee Protection Division Hearing and Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground (political opinion)
  2. 2 Whether claimant met the balance of probabilities for protection under ss.96 and 97 of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony was credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's allegations were rejected because he was found not credible: material contradictions with his initial statement, a complete absence of corroboration, and evidence of deliberate manipulation of immigration processes rebutted the presumption of truth and meant he failed to meet the burden under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1)(a),(b) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed; no protection granted under ss.96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act