TA1-21309

TA1-21309

The Board found the claimant's account not credible on a balance of probabilities due to multiple implausibilities and documentary irregularities (notably the AWOL reports), concluded the claimant is not a deserter and therefore does not face persecution for a Convention ground or a real risk under ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) IRPA, and dismissed the refugee protection claim.

Citation
TA1-21309
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (de Novo Hearing) / Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Desertion, Personal Information Form Omissions, Country Conditions, Risk of Torture, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Military Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +6 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (de Novo Hearing) / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on membership in a particular social group
  2. 2 Whether claimant's testimony and documentary evidence are credible
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces persecution by non-state actors (XXXXX) and whether state protection is available

Ratio Decidendi

The Board found the claimant's account not credible on a balance of probabilities due to multiple implausibilities and documentary irregularities (notably the AWOL reports), concluded the claimant is not a deserter and therefore does not face persecution for a Convention ground or a real risk under ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) IRPA, and dismissed the refugee protection claim.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected
  • No protection granted under sections 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA