TA9-22929

TA9-22929

The panel rejected the principal claimant's evidence as not credible due to sparse, non‑detailed testimony, lack of medical and media corroboration, implausible explanations for absence of records and demeanour inconsistent with alleged torture; consequently the claimant failed to establish membership in SCNC or a serious risk of persecution or torture and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA9-22929
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Adult Female Claimant (spouse): XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Male Claimant (child): XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Female Claimant (child): XXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Political Opinion, Political Participation, Torture, Credibility, Documentary Evidence, Minister Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Exclusion Political Opinion Political Participation Torture Credibility Documentary Evidence +1 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

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Adult Female Claimant (spouse)

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Male Claimant (child)

XXXXXXX

Minor Female Claimant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 claimants' identity
  2. 2 exclusion under section 98 IRPA via Article 1E and Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention
  3. 3 whether principal claimant faces persecution for political opinion (SCNC membership)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the principal claimant's evidence as not credible due to sparse, non‑detailed testimony, lack of medical and media corroboration, implausible explanations for absence of records and demeanour inconsistent with alleged torture; consequently the claimant failed to establish membership in SCNC or a serious risk of persecution or torture and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.