TB0-07211

TB0-07211

The claim is rejected because the claimant's testimony is found not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and lack of corroboration; alternatively, even if some allegations were accepted, the Tribunal finds on available country evidence that conditions in Sri Lanka have changed in a politically significant, effective and durable way such that there is no serious chance of persecution, and alleged extortion is a generalized risk lacking nexus to a Convention ground.

Citation
TB0-07211
Parties
Claimant / Asylum‑seeker: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada); Adjudicator / Panel Member: Atam Uppal
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection RPD Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing (rpd)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s97), Credibility Assessment, Change in Country Conditions, Generalized Risk / Extortion, State Protection, Safe Third Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s97) Credibility Assessment Change in Country Conditions +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant / Asylum‑seeker

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Respondent / Minister

Atam Uppal

Adjudicator / Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection RPD Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies as 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 Whether claimant's evidence is credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant's testimony is found not credible due to material inconsistencies, omissions and lack of corroboration; alternatively, even if some allegations were accepted, the Tribunal finds on available country evidence that conditions in Sri Lanka have changed in a politically significant, effective and durable way such that there is no serious chance of persecution, and alleged extortion is a generalized risk lacking nexus to a Convention ground.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to s.108(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act