TA3-04653

TA3-04653

The panel accepted the male claimant's credible testimony that he participated in anti‑regime demonstrations in 2002, noted corroborating documentary evidence of the political climate and repatriation mistreatment, and on the balance of probabilities found more than a mere possibility he would be persecuted by state agents (Sepah) on political grounds if returned; conversely the panel found the female claimant's testimony not credible in light of contradictory port of entry and airline evidence and rejected her claim.

Citation
TA3-04653
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons Issued April 17, 2008)
Outcome
Male claimant (XXXXX XXXXX) accepted as a Convention refugee; female claimant (XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX) rejected and not found to be a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Credibility Findings, Political Opinion, Particular Social Group, Risk of Torture, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Family Claims, Illegal Exit, Port of Entry Evidence
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear Credibility Findings Political Opinion +7 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons Issued April 17, 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimants
  2. 2 Subjective component of well-founded fear
  3. 3 Objective risk of persecution on return

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the male claimant's credible testimony that he participated in anti‑regime demonstrations in 2002, noted corroborating documentary evidence of the political climate and repatriation mistreatment, and on the balance of probabilities found more than a mere possibility he would be persecuted by state agents (Sepah) on political grounds if returned; conversely the panel found the female claimant's testimony not credible in light of contradictory port of entry and airline evidence and rejected her claim.

Court Disposition

Male claimant (XXXXX XXXXX) accepted as a Convention refugee; female claimant (XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX) rejected and not found to be a person in need of protection.