TB1-17614

TB1-17614

The panel found the claimant's account not credible and not sufficiently specific to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of torture; country documentation showed Alevis are able to practice relatively freely and the panel found a viable internal flight alternative, therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB1-17614
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Decision Maker: Mamerto Geronimo; Counsel for Claimant: Cemal Acikgoz; Counsel for Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (s.96 and S.97 Irpa) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Religious Persecution, Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Religious Persecution +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Mamerto Geronimo

Decision Maker

Cemal Acikgoz

Counsel for Claimant

N/A

Counsel for Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (s.96 and S.97 Irpa) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's accounts of political arrests, detention and threats

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's account not credible and not sufficiently specific to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of torture; country documentation showed Alevis are able to practice relatively freely and the panel found a viable internal flight alternative, therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA; refugee protection claim rejected