TB4-11621

TB4-11621

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants' evidence to be insufficiently credible and insufficiently corroborated, key alleged incidents were implausible or too remote, and state protection was not demonstrably unavailable; therefore the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution and their claims were dismissed.

Citation
TB4-11621
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Female Claimant: Mirela Todorovic; Minor Claimant (son): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Ethnicity Based Persecution, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Well Founded Fear State Protection Credibility Assessment Ethnicity Based Persecution Roma Discrimination

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

Mirela Todorovic

Female Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (son)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity and profile
  2. 2 Credibility of claimants
  3. 3 Objective and subjective components of well-founded fear

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants' evidence to be insufficiently credible and insufficiently corroborated, key alleged incidents were implausible or too remote, and state protection was not demonstrably unavailable; therefore the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution and their claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refusal of refugee protection claim(s)
  • Decision issued February 5, 2019 by panel H. Ross