TB1-14916

TB1-14916

The Panel rejected the claim because the claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated: material inconsistencies between accounts, lack of medical or police reports, unexplained delays and re‑availment, and late discrepant documentary evidence led the Panel to conclude there is no well‑founded fear of persecution under s.96 and no balance‑of‑probabilities risk under s.97; therefore the claimants are not entitled to protection.

Citation
TB1-14916
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Gender Related Persecution, Well Founded Fear, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Gender Based Asylum Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Gender Related Persecution +2 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

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant Minor

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision on the Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's sexual orientation and allegations are credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim because the claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated: material inconsistencies between accounts, lack of medical or police reports, unexplained delays and re‑availment, and late discrepant documentary evidence led the Panel to conclude there is no well‑founded fear of persecution under s.96 and no balance‑of‑probabilities risk under s.97; therefore the claimants are not entitled to protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected
  • Hearing will not be reconvened because decision is negative; no further identification of minors required