MA4-03904

MA4-03904

The panel found the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence not credible, determined key documents were likely fraudulent, and concluded on a balance of probabilities that a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative (such as Karachi or any population centre reasonably removed from his home village) exists; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor a substantial ground for torture or risk to life across the country, and the claim is rejected.

Citation
MA4-03904
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Dan M. Bohbot; Refugee Protection Officer: Nicolas Nolin; Panel Member: Michael Crelinsten
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Persecution, Torture, Risk to Life, Delay, Fraudulent Documents, Social Group/family, Religion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Persecution +6 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Dan M. Bohbot

Claimant's Counsel

Nicolas Nolin

Refugee Protection Officer

Michael Crelinsten

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b)
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant and evidentiary documents (FIR, warrant, lawyer's letter)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence not credible, determined key documents were likely fraudulent, and concluded on a balance of probabilities that a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative (such as Karachi or any population centre reasonably removed from his home village) exists; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor a substantial ground for torture or risk to life across the country, and the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection