MA6-07677

MA6-07677

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to establish the crucial factual element—ownership of the apartment—and did not provide or attempt to obtain documentary proof; therefore she did not satisfy the requirement in s.97(1)(b) for protection.

Citation
MA6-07677
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Hearing Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Fraud, Harassment, Production of Documents, Credibility, Ownership of Property, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Armenia
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Refugee Protection Fraud Harassment Production of Documents Credibility Ownership of Property +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant's ownership of an apartment in Armenia was sufficiently established
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony regarding threats, police conduct, and alleged harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to establish the crucial factual element—ownership of the apartment—and did not provide or attempt to obtain documentary proof; therefore she did not satisfy the requirement in s.97(1)(b) for protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected.