TB1-05789

TB1-05789

Claim denied because claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a credible, corroborated, personalized risk of persecution; material inconsistencies and omissions undermined credibility; objective country evidence and UNHCR guidance indicate improved conditions and that alleged risks were generalized or not individualized; sur place not established; s.97(1) therefore applies where relevant.

Citation
TB1-05789
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Robert I. Blanshay; Counsel for Minister: R. Desjardins; Panel Member: Judy Lewis
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded; Reasons and Decision Issued
Outcome
Claim denied; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Refugee Sur Place, Persecution, Generalized Risk, Country Conditions, Section 96 and 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Refugee Sur Place Persecution Generalized Risk Country Conditions +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Robert I. Blanshay

Counsel for Claimant

R. Desjardins

Counsel for Minister

Judy Lewis

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded; Reasons and Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has credible, corroborated subjective fear based on political activity
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces a well‑founded prospect of persecution by Sri Lankan security forces or paramilitaries
  3. 3 Whether claimant is excluded from protection because the risk alleged is a generalized risk under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Claim denied because claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a credible, corroborated, personalized risk of persecution; material inconsistencies and omissions undermined credibility; objective country evidence and UNHCR guidance indicate improved conditions and that alleged risks were generalized or not individualized; sur place not established; s.97(1) therefore applies where relevant.

Court Disposition

Claim denied; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed
  • Reasons and decision dated August 30, 2012