MA6-02831

MA6-02831

The panel found the claimant was not a Convention refugee because he was not shown to be individually targeted or sought by authorities; credible country evidence established that internal relocation within India (for example to New Delhi) was reasonably available and not unduly harsh, so return did not expose him to persecution; accordingly the claim was rejected.

Citation
MA6-02831
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Normand Leduc; Panel Member: Roger Houde
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (merits Hearing)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and an internal flight alternative is available
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution of Family Members, Political Opinion, Religion, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Persecution of Family Members Political Opinion Religion +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Normand Leduc

Refugee Protection Officer

Roger Houde

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (merits Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative is available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant was not a Convention refugee because he was not shown to be individually targeted or sought by authorities; credible country evidence established that internal relocation within India (for example to New Delhi) was reasonably available and not unduly harsh, so return did not expose him to persecution; accordingly the claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and an internal flight alternative is available

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected.