MB6-06094

MB6-06094

The claims were rejected because the panel found the claimants' account not credible due to numerous inconsistencies, omissions and implausible explanations (failure to warn family members, inconsistent police complaint account, failure to corroborate the alleged gang leader despite research, implausible mitigations like route changes), and because documentary evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the core allegations; accordingly the claimants failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or death if returned to Honduras.

Citation
MB6-06094
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse/claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment State Protection

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse/claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' account

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the panel found the claimants' account not credible due to numerous inconsistencies, omissions and implausible explanations (failure to warn family members, inconsistent police complaint account, failure to corroborate the alleged gang leader despite research, implausible mitigations like route changes), and because documentary evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the core allegations; accordingly the claimants failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture or death if returned to Honduras.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed
  • Claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA