TA5-05464

TA5-05464

The claimant's evidence was found not credible and lacked expected corroborating documentation (notably baptismal and church corroboration), and on the balance of probabilities the panel found no well‑founded fear of persecution linked to religion nor real risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; accordingly the claim is rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA5-05464
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee Definition, Credibility Assessment, Freedom of Religion, Documentary Evidence and Translation, Production of Documents, State Protection, Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Definition Credibility Assessment Freedom of Religion Documentary Evidence and Translation +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent

Minister's Counsel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between feared harm and religion

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was found not credible and lacked expected corroborating documentation (notably baptismal and church corroboration), and on the balance of probabilities the panel found no well‑founded fear of persecution linked to religion nor real risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; accordingly the claim is rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The claimant's refugee protection claim is rejected; the claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA and is not a person in need of protection within the meaning of s.97(1) of the IRPA