VA2-00643

VA2-00643

The claim was rejected because the panel found key aspects of the claimant's evidence not credible or insufficiently supported, country documentation did not show Burghers are persecuted, relocation to Kandy was a reasonable internal flight alternative, and delay in seeking protection undermined subjective fear, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
VA2-00643
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: H. Alexander Dantzer; Refugee Protection Officer: Nil; Designated Representative: XXXXXXXXXXX; Minister's Counsel: Nil; Panel Member/decision Maker: Kurt Neuenfeldt
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, Child Claimant Procedural Issues, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Gender Related Persecution Child Claimant Procedural Issues Country Conditions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

H. Alexander Dantzer

Claimant's Counsel

Nil

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXXXXXXXX

Designated Representative

Nil

Minister's Counsel

Kurt Neuenfeldt

Panel Member/decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces persecution on grounds of ethnicity (Burgher) or gender
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant and witnesses
  3. 3 Whether internal flight alternative (relocation within Sri Lanka) is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found key aspects of the claimant's evidence not credible or insufficiently supported, country documentation did not show Burghers are persecuted, relocation to Kandy was a reasonable internal flight alternative, and delay in seeking protection undermined subjective fear, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected; no protection granted