MA5-03216

MA5-03216

Claimant failed to establish a personalized, well-founded fear of persecution or a need for protection because there was no evidence he was ever targeted by LTTE, PLOTE or state forces, country documentation shows reduced general risk and available state protection since the 2002 ceasefire, and there is no reliable evidence that returned failed asylum seekers are routinely persecuted; therefore the claim fails under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA5-03216
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Raoul Boulakia; Decision Maker: Barbara Berger; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Refugee Sur Place, Late Disclosure, Natural Justice, Country Risk Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Refugee Sur Place Late Disclosure +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Raoul Boulakia

Claimant's Counsel

Barbara Berger

Decision Maker

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing

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) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a personal risk of persecution from LTTE, PLOTE, police or army

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to establish a personalized, well-founded fear of persecution or a need for protection because there was no evidence he was ever targeted by LTTE, PLOTE or state forces, country documentation shows reduced general risk and available state protection since the 2002 ceasefire, and there is no reliable evidence that returned failed asylum seekers are routinely persecuted; therefore the claim fails under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected