TB2-13036

TB2-13036

The Tribunal concluded the claimant failed to satisfy the evidentiary burden because the key corroborating document was found to be counterfeit and there was no independent corroboration from American or other sources; therefore the claimant was not credible and failed to establish protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA, and mental illness/inadequate medical services did not engage protection under s.97(1)(b)(iv).

Citation
TB2-13036
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Credibility and Corroboration, Mental Health and Asylum Claims, Section 97 Protection (torture/risk), Humanitarian and Compassionate Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Credibility and Corroboration Mental Health and Asylum Claims Section 97 Protection (torture/risk) Humanitarian and Compassionate Jurisdiction

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant would be personally exposed to torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Assessment of credibility and corroboration of documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal concluded the claimant failed to satisfy the evidentiary burden because the key corroborating document was found to be counterfeit and there was no independent corroboration from American or other sources; therefore the claimant was not credible and failed to establish protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA, and mental illness/inadequate medical services did not engage protection under s.97(1)(b)(iv).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA