MA1-09699

MA1-09699

The principal is excluded under Article 1F(a) because his 15+ years of willing service, promotions and positions of responsibility in the Sri Lankan police after knowledge of systemic abuses permit the inference of complicity or shared organisational purpose; he had opportunities to leave and did not meaningfully seek state remedies. The spouse and children do not satisfy the subjective and objective elements of a well‑founded fear nor the s.97 test and have not rebutted the presumption of state protection nor shown that an internal flight alternative is unavailable; therefore their claims are rejected.

Citation
MA1-09699
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Claimant's Counsel: Gordon Wiseman; Minister's Counsel: C. Beaupré; Refugee Protection Officer: Gary Dukeshire; Designated Representative for Minors: XXXXX XXXXX; Panel (decision Maker): Rocco Famiglietti
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim With Minister's Intervention and Exclusion Issue / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Principal claimant excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(a); spouse and both children denied Convention refugee status and denied status as persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.
Legal Topics
Exclusion (article 1 F(a)), Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Complicity and Crimes Against Humanity, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Burden and Standard of Proof, Identity and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law Human Rights Criminal Law Administrative Law Exclusion (article 1 F(a)) Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa) +5 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Gordon Wiseman

Claimant's Counsel

C. Beaupré

Minister's Counsel

Gary Dukeshire

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative for Minors

Rocco Famiglietti

Panel (decision Maker)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim With Minister's Intervention and Exclusion Issue / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(a) for crimes against humanity or complicity therein
  2. 2 Whether the spouse and children qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available or rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The principal is excluded under Article 1F(a) because his 15+ years of willing service, promotions and positions of responsibility in the Sri Lankan police after knowledge of systemic abuses permit the inference of complicity or shared organisational purpose; he had opportunities to leave and did not meaningfully seek state remedies. The spouse and children do not satisfy the subjective and objective elements of a well‑founded fear nor the s.97 test and have not rebutted the presumption of state protection nor shown that an internal flight alternative is unavailable; therefore their claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Principal claimant excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(a); spouse and both children denied Convention refugee status and denied status as persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.