TA5-11200

TA5-11200

The claimant failed to establish identity on a balance of probabilities because the primary Resident Identity Card was forensically determined to be counterfeit, supporting documents contained material inconsistencies and impossible data, and the claimant's explanations were implausible; under RPD Rule 7 and IRPA s.106 the failure to establish identity requires rejection of the refugee protection claim.

Citation
TA5-11200
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer; Counsel for Minister: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / RPD Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Identity Documents, Forgery, Credibility, Religious Persecution, Burden of Proof, Documentary Evidence, Rule 7, IRPA S.106
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Identity Documents Forgery Credibility Religious Persecution Burden of Proof +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent

Minister's Counsel

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / RPD Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established identity as a national of the People's Republic of China
  2. 2 Whether identity documents presented were authentic or fraudulent
  3. 3 Whether claimant provided a reasonable explanation for lack of acceptable identity documentation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish identity on a balance of probabilities because the primary Resident Identity Card was forensically determined to be counterfeit, supporting documents contained material inconsistencies and impossible data, and the claimant's explanations were implausible; under RPD Rule 7 and IRPA s.106 the failure to establish identity requires rejection of the refugee protection claim.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.