TA5-12071

TA5-12071

On the balance of probabilities the claimant's fear is not objectively well-founded because there is no evidence that the authorities know her identity or targeted her, the reports relied on do not establish risk to her personally, and her failure to seek asylum in the U.S. undermines the credibility of a sustained subjective fear; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA5-12071
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: W. Kawun; Decision Maker: Harvey Savage
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Rendered
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Political Opinion, Well Founded Fear, Section 97 IRPA (need for Protection), Safe Third Country/asylum Procedures, Detention, Delay
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Political Opinion Well Founded Fear Section 97 IRPA (need for Protection) Safe Third Country/asylum Procedures +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

W. Kawun

Refugee Protection Officer

Harvey Savage

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion in Zimbabwe
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's failure to claim asylum in the United States undermines her credibility and subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant's fear is not objectively well-founded because there is no evidence that the authorities know her identity or targeted her, the reports relied on do not establish risk to her personally, and her failure to seek asylum in the U.S. undermines the credibility of a sustained subjective fear; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected; no protection granted