MA3-09205

MA3-09205

The panel rejected the refugee claim because the claimant failed to meet the onus of proving an individualized risk or that he was unable or unwilling to seek state protection; credibility was undermined by inconsistencies, implausibilities, addition and withdrawal of a Convention ground, and by delay and travel to third countries without claiming asylum, leading to conclusion the harm feared was a general risk faced by many in El Salvador rather than a specific risk to the claimant.

Citation
MA3-09205
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Leigh Salsberg; Refugee Protection Officer: Gerard Therrien; Panel: Me Donal Archambault; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Oral Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Persecution, Delay/sojourning/reavailment, Political Participation, Generalized Risk Vs. Individualized Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Convention Refugee Status Persecution Delay/sojourning/reavailment +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Leigh Salsberg

Claimant's Counsel

Gerard Therrien

Refugee Protection Officer

Me Donal Archambault

Panel

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Oral Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  2. 2 Whether claimant is unable or unwilling to avail himself of state protection
  3. 3 Whether the risk is individualized and not faced generally by others in the country

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee claim because the claimant failed to meet the onus of proving an individualized risk or that he was unable or unwilling to seek state protection; credibility was undermined by inconsistencies, implausibilities, addition and withdrawal of a Convention ground, and by delay and travel to third countries without claiming asylum, leading to conclusion the harm feared was a general risk faced by many in El Salvador rather than a specific risk to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected