TB2-00693

TB2-00693

The panel rejected the claimant's allegations as not credible on balance of probabilities and alternatively found that post‑war changes in Sri Lanka materially reduced risk to Tamils who are not suspected LTTE affiliates; because the claimant failed to establish a subjective well‑founded fear and, on the facts, would not face objective persecution or risk under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA, the claim was dismissed.

Citation
TB2-00693
Parties
Claimant/asylum Seeker: XXXX XXXX; Respondent/minister: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA; motion for recusal denied
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Change of Country Conditions, Sur Place, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Change of Country Conditions Sur Place +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant/asylum Seeker

Canada (Minister)

Respondent/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Final Decision by Refugee Protection Division

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 claimant's allegations of arrest, torture and threats

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's allegations as not credible on balance of probabilities and alternatively found that post‑war changes in Sri Lanka materially reduced risk to Tamils who are not suspected LTTE affiliates; because the claimant failed to establish a subjective well‑founded fear and, on the facts, would not face objective persecution or risk under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA, the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA; motion for recusal denied

Orders

  • Motion for reasonable apprehension of bias denied
  • Claimant's claim for refugee protection is rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA