TB0-16069

TB0-16069

The claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, an individualized and well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture: country evidence indicates improved conditions except for those reasonably suspected of LTTE links; there was no persuasive evidence the claimants were or would be perceived as LTTE members or sympathizers; the 2009 abduction and reported extortions are generalized criminal acts and do not establish persecution under ss.96/97(1) IRPA. Accordingly the RPD rejected both Convention refugee and s.97(1) protection claims.

Citation
TB0-16069
Parties
Principal Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following RPD Hearing
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility and Burden of Proof, Generalized Risk Vs. Individual Targeting, Non State Actor Persecution, Abduction and Extortion, Country Conditions Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility and Burden of Proof Generalized Risk Vs. Individual Targeting Non State Actor Persecution +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant (asylum Claimant)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following RPD Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' evidence and whether it establishes individualized risk

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, an individualized and well‑founded fear of persecution or a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture: country evidence indicates improved conditions except for those reasonably suspected of LTTE links; there was no persuasive evidence the claimants were or would be perceived as LTTE members or sympathizers; the 2009 abduction and reported extortions are generalized criminal acts and do not establish persecution under ss.96/97(1) IRPA. Accordingly the RPD rejected both Convention refugee and s.97(1) protection claims.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims (decision dated March 15, 2012).