AA5-00211

AA5-00211

The claim is dismissed because the claimant's account was not credible or plausible, lacked objective corroboration that SOGNUT or family members posed a real risk, showed inconsistent conduct (renewal of Israeli passport, repeated returns to Peru), failed to establish absence of state protection given only one police report, and delay in claiming asylum undermined the assertion of well‑founded fear; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
AA5-00211
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: P. Dorais; Panel Member: Me Michael Hamelin
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Convention Refugee Determination / Final Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; refugee protection and protection claims denied
Legal Topics
Religion, Membership in a Particular Social Group (family), Persecution, State Protection, Dual Nationality, Internal Relocation, Credibility, Delay/timeliness, Peru, Israel
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Religion Membership in a Particular Social Group (family) Persecution State Protection Dual Nationality +5 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

P. Dorais

Refugee Protection Officer

Me Michael Hamelin

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Convention Refugee Determination / Final Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant's account
  2. 2 Whether SOGNUT or members of Jewish community persecuted claimant
  3. 3 Whether family members constitute a particular social group posing persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the claimant's account was not credible or plausible, lacked objective corroboration that SOGNUT or family members posed a real risk, showed inconsistent conduct (renewal of Israeli passport, repeated returns to Peru), failed to establish absence of state protection given only one police report, and delay in claiming asylum undermined the assertion of well‑founded fear; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; refugee protection and protection claims denied