TA9-02429

TA9-02429

The panel found the claimant's evidence not credible due to unexplained late additions, lack of available corroboration (medical reports, Q Branch phone number, employer confirmation), implausible conduct (delay and failure to claim in the USA), and consequently concluded on balance of probabilities that the claimant did not have a well‑founded fear of persecution nor face a personal risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; the claim was rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA9-02429
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and is not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Political Opinion, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Failure to Seek Protection in First Safe Country, Corroboration, Late Filing of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Political Opinion Arbitrary Arrest and 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a real risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence is credible and adequately corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's evidence not credible due to unexplained late additions, lack of available corroboration (medical reports, Q Branch phone number, employer confirmation), implausible conduct (delay and failure to claim in the USA), and consequently concluded on balance of probabilities that the claimant did not have a well‑founded fear of persecution nor face a personal risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; the claim was rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and is not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed