MA3-04901

MA3-04901

The tribunal rejected the claims because the applicants failed to meet the burden on a balance of probabilities to show a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of torture or death: incidents alleged were remote and unacted upon, new allegations lacked credibility, documentary country evidence did not support a risk for marrying a non‑Bangladeshi, and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
MA3-04901
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Family/religious Harassment, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Membership of a Particular Social Group Credibility Internal Flight Alternative +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97 (risk of torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Credibility and seriousness of fear

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal rejected the claims because the applicants failed to meet the burden on a balance of probabilities to show a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of torture or death: incidents alleged were remote and unacted upon, new allegations lacked credibility, documentary country evidence did not support a risk for marrying a non‑Bangladeshi, and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; no protection granted