TA9-03155

TA9-03155

The panel concluded that the claimant did not satisfy the required evidentiary standard to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or lack of state protection: threats were unsubstantiated, no proof was provided of police refusal, the claimant suffered no actual harm, and an internal flight alternative was plausible; therefore the claim for Convention refugee status and protection under s.97(1) fails.

Citation
TA9-03155
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Refugee Claim (hearing Completed)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution by Family Members, Religion, Traditional Authority
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution by Family Members +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Refugee Claim (hearing Completed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has well‑founded fear of persecution for refusal to assume traditional chief priest role
  2. 2 Whether state protection was unavailable or ineffective
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative existed

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded that the claimant did not satisfy the required evidentiary standard to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or lack of state protection: threats were unsubstantiated, no proof was provided of police refusal, the claimant suffered no actual harm, and an internal flight alternative was plausible; therefore the claim for Convention refugee status and protection under s.97(1) fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.