TB5-02288

TB5-02288

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant was found generally not credible due to numerous unexplained inconsistencies, material omissions, lack of reasonably available corroboration, implausible delays and shifting explanations, and because the psychiatric report was given little weight; on the balance of probabilities the claimants did not establish past persecution or a serious risk on return.

Citation
TB5-02288
Parties
Claimant (principal): principal claimant; Claimant (minor): minor claimant 1; Claimant (minor): minor claimant 2; Claimant (minor): minor claimant 3; Respondent: Respondent (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Vulnerability Accommodations, Corroboration and Evidence, Psychiatric Evidence Weight, Safe Third Country Considerations, Family Violence and Sexual Assault
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Vulnerability Accommodations Corroboration and Evidence Psychiatric Evidence Weight Safe Third Country Considerations +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

principal claimant

Claimant (principal)

minor claimant 1

Claimant (minor)

minor claimant 2

Claimant (minor)

minor claimant 3

Claimant (minor)

Respondent (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant is credible
  3. 3 Whether corroborating evidence supports the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the principal claimant was found generally not credible due to numerous unexplained inconsistencies, material omissions, lack of reasonably available corroboration, implausible delays and shifting explanations, and because the psychiatric report was given little weight; on the balance of probabilities the claimants did not establish past persecution or a serious risk on return.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA