TB1-05342

TB1-05342

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant was found not credible on material aspects (including submission of a false document and inconsistent testimony), and alternatively, on the balance of probabilities country conditions and the claimant's profile do not establish a real individual risk tied to a Convention ground or to section 97, nor do his circumstances meet sur place criteria; therefore protection is denied.

Citation
TB1-05342
Parties
Claimant (asylum Seeker): XXXX XXXX; Adjudicator: Atam Uppal; Counsel for the Minister: R. Skilton
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Change of Country Conditions, Sur Place, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Section 97 Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Change of Country Conditions Sur Place +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (asylum Seeker)

Atam Uppal

Adjudicator

R. Skilton

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant regarding past persecution and feared persecutors
  2. 2 Whether claimant's profile places him at heightened risk (nexus to Convention grounds)
  3. 3 Effect of changed country conditions in Sri Lanka since 2009 on risk assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant was found not credible on material aspects (including submission of a false document and inconsistent testimony), and alternatively, on the balance of probabilities country conditions and the claimant's profile do not establish a real individual risk tied to a Convention ground or to section 97, nor do his circumstances meet sur place criteria; therefore protection is denied.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of IRPA

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected; no protection granted