MA9-06008

MA9-06008

The claimants' testimony contained material contradictions and prevarication undermining credibility; they failed to establish a well‑founded fear linked to a Convention ground and did not prove, on the required standard, risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual punishment or lack of state protection; therefore the claim for refugee protection is rejected.

Citation
MA9-06008
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse/claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Decision Maker (panel Member): Youssoupha Diop
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Oral Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Non State Actors (criminal Organization), State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Risk of Torture, Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law (extortion) Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Membership in a Particular Social Group Non State Actors (criminal Organization) +4 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse/claimant

Youssoupha Diop

Decision Maker (panel Member)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Oral Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the claimants faced a real risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture if returned
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available or effective

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' testimony contained material contradictions and prevarication undermining credibility; they failed to establish a well‑founded fear linked to a Convention ground and did not prove, on the required standard, risk to life, torture or cruel and unusual punishment or lack of state protection; therefore the claim for refugee protection is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied (oral reasons for decision)