MA9-02875

MA9-02875

The panel rejected the claims because material contradictions and omissions regarding key events and dates, implausible explanations and lack of corroboration undermined credibility, and therefore the claimants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
MA9-02875
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Marie-José Blain; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minister's Counsel: N/A; Adjudicator: Youssoupha Diop
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (panel Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Particular Social Group, Gang Violence, Credibility, Domestic Violence, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Contradictions, Omissions
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Particular Social Group Gang Violence Credibility Domestic Violence +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Marie-José Blain

Claimant's Counsel

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Youssoupha Diop

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (panel Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees on account of membership in a particular social group (victims/denouncers of gang activity)
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a serious possibility of persecution by the Zetas or others if returned
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection due to risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because material contradictions and omissions regarding key events and dates, implausible explanations and lack of corroboration undermined credibility, and therefore the claimants failed to demonstrate a serious possibility of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.