MA6-07400

MA6-07400

The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to discharge his burden: he lacked credibility about his subjective fear and key facts (failure to register, unawareness of regularization, delay in claiming), the danger he described was generalized rather than individualized, and there was no evidence he would face torture by state authorities; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Citation
MA6-07400
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and not a person in need of protection under section 97.
Legal Topics
Forced Conscription, Military Service Exemption/regularization, Credibility, Generalized Risk, Delay in Claiming, Convention Against Torture, Risk of Torture, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Forced Conscription Military Service Exemption/regularization Credibility Generalized Risk +4 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group (conscripted youths)
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces an individualized risk of persecution or torture on return
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and timing of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to discharge his burden: he lacked credibility about his subjective fear and key facts (failure to register, unawareness of regularization, delay in claiming), the danger he described was generalized rather than individualized, and there was no evidence he would face torture by state authorities; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and not a person in need of protection under section 97.