MA2-09864

MA2-09864

The claimant's fear was generalized from the civil war and not linked to a Convention ground; there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced personal risk of torture by state agents and rebel forces do not qualify as state actors under CAT; documentary evidence of RUF demobilization and restored government control undermined a finding of personal risk, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA2-09864
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jean Gobeil; Decision Maker: Barbara Berger; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Torture Convention Against Torture, Civil War Generalized Risk, State Vs Non State Actors, Demobilization and Reintegration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Torture Convention Against Torture Civil War Generalized Risk State Vs Non State Actors +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX

Claimant

Me Jean Gobeil

Claimant's Counsel

Barbara Berger

Decision Maker

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) (torture)
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) (risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's fear was generalized from the civil war and not linked to a Convention ground; there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced personal risk of torture by state agents and rebel forces do not qualify as state actors under CAT; documentary evidence of RUF demobilization and restored government control undermined a finding of personal risk, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claim for protection refused; no protection granted.