TB5-13207

TB5-13207

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible due to multiple material inconsistencies (timing of visa application and passport, contradictory accounts about shrine confinement and assaults, late and suspect corroborative emails, unexplained delay in claiming) and gave objective visa application documents greater weight; because the claimant failed to prove his sexual orientation on a balance of probabilities and failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture on return, the claim fails.

Citation
TB5-13207
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Mercy Dadepo; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim denied; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation, Bisexuality, Credibility, Persecution, Risk of Torture, Student Visa, Delay in Claiming
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Sexual Orientation Bisexuality Credibility Persecution Risk of Torture +2 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Mercy Dadepo

Counsel for Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a credible witness
  2. 2 Whether the claimant established sexual orientation (bisexual) on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether inconsistencies and objective evidence negate a risk of persecution on a convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible due to multiple material inconsistencies (timing of visa application and passport, contradictory accounts about shrine confinement and assaults, late and suspect corroborative emails, unexplained delay in claiming) and gave objective visa application documents greater weight; because the claimant failed to prove his sexual orientation on a balance of probabilities and failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture on return, the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim denied; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.