TA6-07355

TA6-07355

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimant could safely relocate internally (Calcutta or Goa), there was no national warrant or evidence police were searching for him, and country conditions and the claimant's employment prospects meant he would not face persecution, torture or cruel treatment on return; therefore he is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-07355
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: L. Hart
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Political Opinion, Persecution, Credibility, Country Conditions, Risk of Torture, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Political Opinion Persecution Credibility +3 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

L. Hart

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative exists
  3. 3 Whether removal would expose claimant to risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimant could safely relocate internally (Calcutta or Goa), there was no national warrant or evidence police were searching for him, and country conditions and the claimant's employment prospects meant he would not face persecution, torture or cruel treatment on return; therefore he is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not to be a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim dismissed