MA5-00934

MA5-00934

The panel concluded that on a balance of probabilities the claimant failed to credibly establish past torture or a forward‑looking risk of persecution, torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual punishment due to material omissions, contradictions and insufficient medical corroboration; a viable and attainable Internal Flight Alternative exists; therefore the claim fails under both s.96 and s.97 of the Act.

Citation
MA5-00934
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Jean-Francois Bertrand; Refugee Protection Officer: Cristian Jadue; Panel Member: Michael Crelinsten; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Torture, Evidence, Interpreter Issues, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law (police Conduct) International Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Convention Refugee Status +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Jean-Francois Bertrand

Claimant's Counsel

Cristian Jadue

Refugee Protection Officer

Michael Crelinsten

Panel Member

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for race, religion or nationality
  2. 2 Whether claimant is at danger of torture or at risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
  3. 3 Whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded that on a balance of probabilities the claimant failed to credibly establish past torture or a forward‑looking risk of persecution, torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual punishment due to material omissions, contradictions and insufficient medical corroboration; a viable and attainable Internal Flight Alternative exists; therefore the claim fails under both s.96 and s.97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division