Canada Immigration Case-law Canada, Durmus, IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Procedurel by Joy Stephen, Polinsys

Benit Varghese Caselaws 0 Comments

Judgement for this Case: Click here!
IMMIGRATION — Refugee status — Requirements — Applicant fled country of origin and travelled to Spain, Cuba, Bahamas and United States spending almost two months there — Refugee and Protection Division of Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (“board”) denied applicant refugee protection — Board made negative credibility findings and concluded there was no reasonable chance or serious possibility that applicant would be persecuted on convention ground or that he would face risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment if he were returned to country of origin — Board found applicant’s failure to seek refugee protection in Cuba, Bahamas or United States detracted from his subjective fear — Applicant asserted board breached duty of procedural fairness because of quality of translation provided to applicant at hearing — Applicant sought judicial review — Application dismissed — Applicant did not establish any breach of procedural fairness arising from translation — Applicant did not establish that any alleged errors in translation were departure from expected standard — Applicant did not establish that alleged errors were material to board’s findings or would have resulted in different determinative finding — Board did not err in finding that applicant’s failure to seek refugee protection in Cuba, Bahamas, and United States was inconsistent with his allegations of well-founded fear of persecution — There was no error in board’s overall assessment of applicant’s credibility — Board did not microscopically assess applicant’s credibility — There was no breach of procedural fairness arising from translation of board’s questions or applicant’s answers that had any bearing on board’s adverse credibility findings — Decision was justified, transparent and intelligible and fell within range of reasonable outcomes — Cumulative nature of credibility findings amply supported decision

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *