TA1-22271

TA1-22271

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's account was found not credible and implausible due to material inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and contradictions; consequently she failed to establish that she was a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA1-22271
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: C. Bernard; Designated Representative: Designated Representative; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Social Group, Gender, Female Genital Mutilation, Credibility, Protection Elsewhere, Inconsistency, Persecution, Refugee Status Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Social Group Gender Female Genital Mutilation Credibility Protection Elsewhere +3 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

C. Bernard

Refugee Protection Officer

Designated Representative

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's account was found not credible and implausible due to material inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and contradictions; consequently she failed to establish that she was a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.