TA5-04035

TA5-04035

The claimants' allegations are not credible due to inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of corroboration, and their prolonged sojourn in the USA without claiming protection undermines subjective fear; therefore there is no well-founded fear of persecution and no substantial grounds to believe they face torture or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97 IRPA, so the claims fail.

Citation
TA5-04035
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Forced Marriage, Political Opinion, Membership of a Social Group, Credibility Assessment, Failure to Claim Elsewhere (sojourning), Risk of Torture or Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Safe Third Country, Forced Conscription/militia
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Persecution Forced Marriage Political Opinion Membership of a Social Group Credibility Assessment +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 4 Authorities cited 2 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 Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of the claimants' allegations
  2. 2 Whether forced marriage and associated abuse constitute persecution as a protected ground
  3. 3 Whether perceived political opinion (MDC support) gives rise to a well-founded fear

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' allegations are not credible due to inconsistencies, implausibilities and lack of corroboration, and their prolonged sojourn in the USA without claiming protection undermines subjective fear; therefore there is no well-founded fear of persecution and no substantial grounds to believe they face torture or risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment under s.97 IRPA, so the claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are rejected