MA8-05270

MA8-05270

The panel found the claimant's central allegation of rape not credible due to inconsistencies, delays in leaving and in disclosure, and vagueness; combined with a failure to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, these findings meant the claimant did not meet the statutory definitions of a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
MA8-05270
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jessica Lipes; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division) / Hearing and Decision (oral Hearing; Decision Rendered)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Violence/rape, Credibility Findings, State Protection, Delay in Disclosure, Mental Health (ptsd, Schizophrenia)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Sexual Violence/rape Credibility Findings +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Jessica Lipes

Claimant's Counsel

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division) / Hearing and Decision (oral Hearing; Decision Rendered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection
  2. 2 Credibility and believability of the claimant's central allegation of rape by a police officer
  3. 3 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's central allegation of rape not credible due to inconsistencies, delays in leaving and in disclosure, and vagueness; combined with a failure to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, these findings meant the claimant did not meet the statutory definitions of a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed