TA6-10345

TA6-10345

The claimant's testimony was found not credible on material elements, lacked corroboration, and failed to establish persecution on a Convention ground; general armed conflict does not equal persecution under ss.96-97 IRPA, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-10345
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for the Claimant: Razgar Hasan; Refugee Protection Officer: D. Johnston; Panel Member: Sarwanjit Randhawa
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 97 / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Armed Conflict, Exclusion for War Like Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Armed Conflict +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Razgar Hasan

Counsel for the Claimant

D. Johnston

Refugee Protection Officer

Sarwanjit Randhawa

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA Ss.96 97 / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground in Iraq
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's testimony is credible
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would face risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony was found not credible on material elements, lacked corroboration, and failed to establish persecution on a Convention ground; general armed conflict does not equal persecution under ss.96-97 IRPA, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected; no protection granted