TB7-14296

TB7-14296

The panel rejected the claim because central factual assertions were not credible or corroborated (conflicting accounts about the father's role with the former regime, lack of original documentary evidence and inconsistent witness testimony), and the asserted risk to the minor was speculative; accordingly the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB7-14296
Parties
Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (final Determination)
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Claim, Risk of Torture and Risk to Life, Child Refugee Claim Considerations, No Credible Basis Finding
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Claim Risk of Torture and Risk to Life Child Refugee Claim Considerations No Credible Basis Finding

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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister of Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground (IRPA s.96)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant established danger of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return (IRPA s.97(1))
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant and corroboration of father's alleged role with former Gambian security forces

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because central factual assertions were not credible or corroborated (conflicting accounts about the father's role with the former regime, lack of original documentary evidence and inconsistent witness testimony), and the asserted risk to the minor was speculative; accordingly the claimant failed to meet the s.96 and s.97(1) evidentiary thresholds and the claim lacks a credible basis under s.107(2) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA (no well‑founded fear of persecution).
  • Claim rejected pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA (no danger of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return).