TB8-05627

TB8-05627

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant did not establish her personal identity on a balance of probabilities and her testimony and documentary record were not credible or corroborated; material inconsistencies, admissions of travel on false documents, and failure to obtain available corroboration meant there was no credible basis for a positive determination under IRPA s.96, s.97(1) and s.107(2).

Citation
TB8-05627
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1); claim found to have no credible basis under s.107(2) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Identity, Credibility, No Credible Basis, Persecution, Detention, Fraudulent Documents, Safe Third Country, Country of Origin
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Asylum International Protection Identity Credibility No Credible Basis Persecution Detention +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa S.96 and S.97(1)) / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established identity on a balance of probabilities
  2. 2 Whether claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible and corroborated
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 or a person in need of protection under s.97(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant did not establish her personal identity on a balance of probabilities and her testimony and documentary record were not credible or corroborated; material inconsistencies, admissions of travel on false documents, and failure to obtain available corroboration meant there was no credible basis for a positive determination under IRPA s.96, s.97(1) and s.107(2).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1); claim found to have no credible basis under s.107(2) IRPA.