TA6-14924

TA6-14924

The claimant was rejected because, although the panel found his Burundi-related evidence credible and corroborated by country documents, he holds Rwandan citizenship and the panel concluded he would not have a well-founded fear in Rwanda; further, late additions regarding Rwanda undermined his credibility, so he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-14924
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Jacques Roy; Panel Member: José wa Tshisungu Tshisungu; Counsel for Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Nationality/citizenship, Victim of Criminality, Return to Rwanda, Burundi Human Rights Abuses
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Credibility Assessment Nationality/citizenship +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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Jacques Roy

Counsel for Claimant

José wa Tshisungu Tshisungu

Panel Member

N/A

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant would face persecution, torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment in Rwanda

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was rejected because, although the panel found his Burundi-related evidence credible and corroborated by country documents, he holds Rwandan citizenship and the panel concluded he would not have a well-founded fear in Rwanda; further, late additions regarding Rwanda undermined his credibility, so he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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