MA5-05865

MA5-05865

Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof on credibility and evidentiary grounds: his account was implausible, he did not produce documentary evidence including proof of a prior US claim despite being given time, and his return to the DRC undermined his claimed subjective fear; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA5-05865
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Peter Reiner; Member of Panel: Michel Faure; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof, Credibility and Plausibility, Reavailment, Sojourning, Travel Documents, Persecution of Family Members, Disclosure
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Burden of Proof Credibility and Plausibility Reavailment +4 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Peter Reiner

Claimant's Counsel

Michel Faure

Member of Panel

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister's Counsel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible and plausible

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof on credibility and evidentiary grounds: his account was implausible, he did not produce documentary evidence including proof of a prior US claim despite being given time, and his return to the DRC undermined his claimed subjective fear; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA