MA5-05921

MA5-05921

The claimant's central allegations were found not credible due to material inconsistencies with other evidence, failure to produce corroboration for events a person of his background could reasonably be expected to document, and unjustified delay in seeking protection; consequently he failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return and the claim is rejected.

Citation
MA5-05921
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Chantal Ianniciello; Refugee Protection Officer: Anne Bardin; Decision Maker: Me Ruth Delisle; Minister's Counsel: Marie-Josée Dionne; Designated Representative: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected — claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Political Opinion, Imputed Political Opinion, Persecution of Family Members, Credibility/inconsistency, Evidence/affidavit/production of Documents, Laches/delay, Country Risk: Togo, Negative Decision
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Political Opinion Imputed Political Opinion Persecution of Family Members Credibility/inconsistency Evidence/affidavit/production of Documents +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Chantal Ianniciello

Claimant's Counsel

Anne Bardin

Refugee Protection Officer

Me Ruth Delisle

Decision Maker

Marie-Josée Dionne

Minister's Counsel

N/A

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence is credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's central allegations were found not credible due to material inconsistencies with other evidence, failure to produce corroboration for events a person of his background could reasonably be expected to document, and unjustified delay in seeking protection; consequently he failed to discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk on return and the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

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