TB0-17071

TB0-17071

The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible on material points, alternatively established a viable internal flight alternative in the Colombo metropolitan region, and concluded that the alleged risk of criminal extortion by rogue actors is a generalized risk excluded by s.97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Citation
TB0-17071
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Generalized Risk, Credibility, Nexus, Detention, Extortion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Generalized Risk Credibility Nexus +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well founded fear of persecution under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the panel found the claimant not credible on material points, alternatively established a viable internal flight alternative in the Colombo metropolitan region, and concluded that the alleged risk of criminal extortion by rogue actors is a generalized risk excluded by s.97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection