MB1-02651

MB1-02651

The panel rejected the claim because material and fatal contradictions between the claimant's written PIF and oral testimony, coupled with unexplained delay and apparent fabrication of the alleged persecutor, destroyed credibility; absent credible testimony the claimant did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and thus is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB1-02651
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Decision Maker: José wa Tshisungu Tshisungu; Tribunal Officer: Myra Shuster
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Women, Violence Against Women, Rape, Credibility, Delay in Making a Claim, Subjective Fear, Risk, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Haiti
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Particular Social Group Women Violence Against Women Rape Credibility Delay in Making a Claim +5 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

José wa Tshisungu Tshisungu

Decision Maker

Myra Shuster

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection based on fear of rape as a member of the particular social group of women
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's testimony is credible given contradictions in her Personal Information Form and hearing evidence
  3. 3 Whether the delay in making the refugee claim undermines the claimant's asserted subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because material and fatal contradictions between the claimant's written PIF and oral testimony, coupled with unexplained delay and apparent fabrication of the alleged persecutor, destroyed credibility; absent credible testimony the claimant did not establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and thus is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection