MA8-14268

MA8-14268

Panel accepted claimant's identity and beliefs but found testimony inconsistent and inadequately corroborated; country documentation showed limited discrimination against Rastafarians and stigma toward mental illness but not persecution; therefore claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment and was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA8-14268
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Claudette Menghile; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX); Presiding Panel Member: Me Mélanie Raymond; Tribunal Officer: Linda Doutre
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Hearing and Decision (hearing Dec 13, 2010; Decision Jan 27, 2011)
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Persecution, Political Opinion, Religion (rastafarianism), Vulnerable Person/mental Health, Credibility and Corroboration, Abandonment/reopening
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Persecution Political Opinion +4 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Claudette Menghile

Claimant's Counsel

XXXXX XXXXX (XXXXX)

Designated Representative

Me Mélanie Raymond

Presiding Panel Member

Linda Doutre

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Final Hearing and Decision (hearing Dec 13, 2010; Decision Jan 27, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's mental health and status as a Rastafarian give rise to a serious possibility of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Panel accepted claimant's identity and beliefs but found testimony inconsistent and inadequately corroborated; country documentation showed limited discrimination against Rastafarians and stigma toward mental illness but not persecution; therefore claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment and was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected
  • No protection (Convention refugee or person in need of protection) granted