VA3-04211

VA3-04211

Although the panel accepted the claimant was an active Awami League member, it found material credibility concerns and concluded that viable internal flight alternatives existed (relatives and other districts where he could live undetected and had previously stayed without harm); therefore the claimant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection from torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
VA3-04211
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Douglas Lehrer; Refugee Protection Officer: M. Babcock; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Fred Hitchcock; Minister's Counsel: Nil
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd Rehearing De Novo) / Hearing and Final Decision (de Novo Rehearing, Decision Issued)
Outcome
Claim dismissed: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Torture, Political Opinion/membership, Arrest and Detention
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Douglas Lehrer

Claimant's Counsel

M. Babcock

Refugee Protection Officer

Fred Hitchcock

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Nil

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd Rehearing De Novo) / Hearing and Final Decision (de Novo Rehearing, Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee due to membership of Awami League
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection (risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence is credible

Ratio Decidendi

Although the panel accepted the claimant was an active Awami League member, it found material credibility concerns and concluded that viable internal flight alternatives existed (relatives and other districts where he could live undetected and had previously stayed without harm); therefore the claimant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection from torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied; claimant not found to be Convention refugee
  • Claimant not found to be a person in need of protection under immigration legislation