TA9-09078

TA9-09078

The claimant's fear was not credible or well-founded because there was no evidence of direct threats, he did not pursue feasible protection in Japan despite eligibility through his spouse and demonstrated ability to obtain visas, and he repeatedly returned to Sri Lanka after visiting safe democracies without claiming asylum; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-09078
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse / Co Claimant (disjoined): XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Child (disjoined): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Child (disjoined): XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Child (disjoined): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; negative decision
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, Credibility, Nationality Acquisition, Internal/third Country Protection, Family Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear Credibility Nationality Acquisition Internal/third Country Protection +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse / Co Claimant (disjoined)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Child (disjoined)

XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Child (disjoined)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Child (disjoined)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's asserted fear is credible and well-founded

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's fear was not credible or well-founded because there was no evidence of direct threats, he did not pursue feasible protection in Japan despite eligibility through his spouse and demonstrated ability to obtain visas, and he repeatedly returned to Sri Lanka after visiting safe democracies without claiming asylum; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; negative decision

Orders

  • Claimant is not a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the IRPA
  • Claimant is not a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA