TB0-08222

TB0-08222

On the balance of probabilities the claimant's evidence was not credible and subjective fear was not established due to unexplained delays, material omissions and implausibilities; there was no nexus to a Convention ground and the risk described is generalized rather than individualized; the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; therefore the claim is rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TB0-08222
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.96/97) / Decision (rpd Hearing Concluded)
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, Credibility, Nexus, Generalized Risk, Delay in Claiming, Compelling Reasons, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Nexus Generalized Risk +3 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96/97) / Decision (rpd Hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of PIF and testimony and effect of delay

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant's evidence was not credible and subjective fear was not established due to unexplained delays, material omissions and implausibilities; there was no nexus to a Convention ground and the risk described is generalized rather than individualized; the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; therefore the claim is rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA
  • Decision dated August 9, 2012 (RPD File TB0-08222)