MA5-05653

MA5-05653

The claimants' refugee claims were rejected because the panel found the principal claimant's evidence not credible due to material inconsistency about LTTE visits, implausible conduct and travel history, and because a viable internal flight alternative (relocation to Colombo) and lack of evidence of state or non-state persecution meant they did not establish a well-founded fear or meet s.97 criteria; the minor's claim failed as derivative of an implausible principal claim.

Citation
MA5-05653
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXXXXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refused — claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Imputed Political Opinion, Ethnic Discrimination, Sri Lanka
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Imputed Political Opinion +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXXXX XXXXXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimants' account

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' refugee claims were rejected because the panel found the principal claimant's evidence not credible due to material inconsistency about LTTE visits, implausible conduct and travel history, and because a viable internal flight alternative (relocation to Colombo) and lack of evidence of state or non-state persecution meant they did not establish a well-founded fear or meet s.97 criteria; the minor's claim failed as derivative of an implausible principal claim.

Court Disposition

Refused — claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection denied.
  • No protection granted under s.97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.