TB1-20295

TB1-20295

The claimant's story was found not credible and there is insufficient evidence that he would be persecuted or face a substantial risk of torture on return; documentary country and medical evidence establish availability of psychiatric services and presumptive state protection, therefore the claim fails under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TB1-20295
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant: Geraldine Macdonald
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Mental Illness and Disability, Section 97 Protection (risk of Torture)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Credibility Assessment Mental Illness and Disability +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Geraldine Macdonald

Counsel for the Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's account

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's story was found not credible and there is insufficient evidence that he would be persecuted or face a substantial risk of torture on return; documentary country and medical evidence establish availability of psychiatric services and presumptive state protection, therefore the claim fails under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act