TB1-08921

TB1-08921

Panel accepted claimant's identity and subjective fear but concluded his fear was not objectively well founded: he was not shown to be perceived by Sri Lankan authorities as LTTE-linked, his travel on the MV Sun Sea without other indicators did not establish sur place risk, Canadian investigation and release diminished return risk, and on the balance of probabilities he would not face torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment on return; claim therefore rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB1-08921
Parties
Claimant (asylum Seeker): XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada); Adjudicator/panel Member: Barry D. Barnes
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Merits Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Asylum, Sur Place, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Exclusion From Protection, Risk of Torture, Risk to Life, MV Sun Sea Arrivals
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Asylum Sur Place Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Exclusion From Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (asylum Seeker)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent/minister

Barry D. Barnes

Adjudicator/panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Merits Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant advanced a valid sur place claim
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA (risk of torture, risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment)

Ratio Decidendi

Panel accepted claimant's identity and subjective fear but concluded his fear was not objectively well founded: he was not shown to be perceived by Sri Lankan authorities as LTTE-linked, his travel on the MV Sun Sea without other indicators did not establish sur place risk, Canadian investigation and release diminished return risk, and on the balance of probabilities he would not face torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment on return; claim therefore rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No protection granted