TB0-17375

TB0-17375

The panel rejected the claimant's protection claim because it concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant and her designated representative were not credible, that central allegations of serious harm were fabricated or exaggerated and uncorroborated, and that state protection in Russia was reasonably available; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-17375
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative (son): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Credibility Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative (son)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant and her designated representative were credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's protection claim because it concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant and her designated representative were not credible, that central allegations of serious harm were fabricated or exaggerated and uncorroborated, and that state protection in Russia was reasonably available; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection