MA5-07124

MA5-07124

The tribunal rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible due to material omissions and inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, and concluded he failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or a real risk of torture or death on return; internal relocation to Colombo was viable; therefore claim fails under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA5-07124
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Panel Member: Léon Graub; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Designated Representative: Designated Representative; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / De Novo Hearing Merits Decision
Outcome
claim rejected
Legal Topics
Forced Recruitment, Detention, Torture, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Forced Recruitment Detention Torture Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

Léon Graub

Panel Member

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Designated Representative

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / De Novo Hearing Merits Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA (risk of torture, risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible due to material omissions and inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, and concluded he failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or a real risk of torture or death on return; internal relocation to Colombo was viable; therefore claim fails under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

claim rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected
  • Not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA