TB3-00704

TB3-00704

The panel found the claimant's evidence lacked credibility due to material and core inconsistencies between POE notes, the BOC and testimony, shifting and implausible explanations for those inconsistencies, failure to seek protection in the first available country (U.S.), and unreliable documentary evidence; an independent interpreter audit found interpretation acceptable, and on the totality of the evidence there was no serious possibility of persecution under ss.96 and 97 IRPA, so the claim is rejected.

Citation
TB3-00704
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Adjudicator: C. Buttigieg
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (ss.96,97) / Hearing Concluded; Decision Rendered After Post Hearing Written Submissions and Interpreter Audit
Outcome
Claim rejected; refugee protection claim denied
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Interpretation and Interpreter Audit, Post Hearing Disclosure, Eligibility for Refugee Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Interpretation and Interpreter Audit Post Hearing Disclosure Eligibility for Refugee 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

C. Buttigieg

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (ss.96,97) / Hearing Concluded; Decision Rendered After Post Hearing Written Submissions and Interpreter Audit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant meets threshold for refugee protection under s.96 and ss.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether material inconsistencies and shifting explanations undermine claimant's credibility
  3. 3 Whether post-hearing evidence should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's evidence lacked credibility due to material and core inconsistencies between POE notes, the BOC and testimony, shifting and implausible explanations for those inconsistencies, failure to seek protection in the first available country (U.S.), and unreliable documentary evidence; an independent interpreter audit found interpretation acceptable, and on the totality of the evidence there was no serious possibility of persecution under ss.96 and 97 IRPA, so the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; refugee protection claim denied

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed under ss.96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Post-hearing documentary disclosure partially accepted; 41-page 2010 document denied