TB2-07643

TB2-07643

Because the claimant presented an Indian passport and evidence of a Registration Certificate, and because her testimony about the RC and passport was inconsistent and not credible, the panel concluded she is an Indian citizen; accordingly she failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return to India, and the claim is rejected.

Citation
TB2-07643
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Merits Hearing and Decision (oral Hearing, Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Country of Reference, Citizenship and Nationality, Credibility Assessment, Expulsion/deportation Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Citizenship Law Refugee Protection Country of Reference Citizenship and Nationality Credibility Assessment Expulsion/deportation Risk

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX (A.K.A. XXXX XXXX)

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Merits Hearing and Decision (oral Hearing, Reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a citizen of India
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground if returned to India
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would be deported from India to Tibet/China and face persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant presented an Indian passport and evidence of a Registration Certificate, and because her testimony about the RC and passport was inconsistent and not credible, the panel concluded she is an Indian citizen; accordingly she failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return to India, and the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected