TB1-07229

TB1-07229

The claim was rejected because the panel found insufficient persuasive and corroborative evidence of individualized persecution or torture on a Convention ground, the claimant had been released after detentions and was able to obtain a passport and exit Sri Lanka (undercutting allegation of being wanted), he did not fit UNHCR risk profiles, the threats alleged were generalized/extortionate and excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii), and there was no nexus to a Convention ground.

Citation
TB1-07229
Parties
Claimant/asylum Seeker: XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Division Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97 / Hearing Concluded; Reasons and Decision Issued
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Asylum, Convention Refugee, Credibility and Corroboration, Generalized Risk, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Refugee Sur Place, Country Conditions, Exclusion Under Section 97(1)(b)(ii)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Asylum Convention Refugee Credibility and Corroboration Generalized Risk +4 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant/asylum Seeker

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Division Claim Under IRPA Sections 96 and 97 / Hearing Concluded; Reasons and Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and lack of persuasive corroborative evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found insufficient persuasive and corroborative evidence of individualized persecution or torture on a Convention ground, the claimant had been released after detentions and was able to obtain a passport and exit Sri Lanka (undercutting allegation of being wanted), he did not fit UNHCR risk profiles, the threats alleged were generalized/extortionate and excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii), and there was no nexus to a Convention ground.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA