TA4-04624

TA4-04624

Because the claimant's core assertions were contradicted by his ROE answers, documentary evidence and implausibilities in his account, the decision-maker found him not credible on the balance of probabilities; lacking a credible subjective fear, and with no persuasive objective risk, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA4-04624
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: E. Lerner; Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision at the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Religious Persecution, Freedom of Religion, Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Roe/poe Notes, Risk Assessment Under S.97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Religious Persecution Freedom of Religion Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Roe/poe Notes +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

E. Lerner

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision at the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and reliable

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant's core assertions were contradicted by his ROE answers, documentary evidence and implausibilities in his account, the decision-maker found him not credible on the balance of probabilities; lacking a credible subjective fear, and with no persuasive objective risk, the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed