TB3-07040

TB3-07040

The panel rejected the claimants' applications because, on a balance of probabilities, their testimony was not credible due to material omissions on POE forms, numerous unexplained contradictions and evasions, failure to provide corroborative documents despite ample time, and the expert psychological report and limited documentary evidence were insufficient to overcome these credibility defects; consequently there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk under ss.96-97 IRPA and the claims fail.

Citation
TB3-07040
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX; Claimant (female): XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Hearing and Decision (final Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status (ss.96 97 Irpa), Detention and Torture Allegations, Membership in Political/religious Organization, Documentary Corroboration, Expert Psychological Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Gender Related Persecution Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status (ss.96 97 Irpa) Detention and Torture Allegations +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (female)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Hearing and Decision (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether omissions on the POE forms undermine the claims
  3. 3 Whether documentary and expert evidence corroborate the alleged persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' applications because, on a balance of probabilities, their testimony was not credible due to material omissions on POE forms, numerous unexplained contradictions and evasions, failure to provide corroborative documents despite ample time, and the expert psychological report and limited documentary evidence were insufficient to overcome these credibility defects; consequently there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk under ss.96-97 IRPA and the claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection