MA6-02301

MA6-02301

Claim rejected because claimant's credibility was undermined by material contradictions and lack of corroboration, the alleged risks are general rather than personalized (so do not meet s.97), membership/returnee status does not constitute a protected particular social group, and internal relocation in Haiti was reasonable; therefore refugee protection not established.

Citation
MA6-02301
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer; Decision‑maker: Panel (Refugee Protection Division)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Oral Decision (reasons Signed)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Particular Social Group, Political Opinion, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Sponsorship/immigration Motive
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Particular Social Group Political Opinion Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent

Panel (Refugee Protection Division)

Decision‑maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Oral Decision (reasons Signed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether membership in or returnees from abroad constitutes a particular social group

Ratio Decidendi

Claim rejected because claimant's credibility was undermined by material contradictions and lack of corroboration, the alleged risks are general rather than personalized (so do not meet s.97), membership/returnee status does not constitute a protected particular social group, and internal relocation in Haiti was reasonable; therefore refugee protection not established.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected