TA6-13300

TA6-13300

The claimant's testimony was found not credible on core elements (lack of targeted threats, inconsistent explanations, inability to document family composition), he failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Albania, and his failure to seek asylum in Italy undermined subjective fear; therefore on balance of probabilities he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA6-13300
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected — not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Under S.97 IRPA, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Family Honour Killings, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country, Vulnerable Person Designation
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination Protection Under S.97 IRPA State Protection Credibility Assessment Family Honour Killings +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

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 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's evidence is credible and establishes a well‑founded fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony was found not credible on core elements (lack of targeted threats, inconsistent explanations, inability to document family composition), he failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Albania, and his failure to seek asylum in Italy undermined subjective fear; therefore on balance of probabilities he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected — not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected by Refugee Protection Division
  • No protection granted under ss.96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act