MA5-06184

MA5-06184

Colombo constitutes a viable internal flight alternative; claimant failed to prove it would be objectively unreasonable for him to relocate there or that he faces a serious possibility of persecution linked to a Convention ground or a likelihood of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return, therefore the claim fails under ss.96 and 97 of IRPA.

Citation
MA5-06184
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Jackie Esmonde; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Presiding Member: William M. Davis; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision Following Hearing (videoconference)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA nor a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Credibility, Medical Incapacity to Testify, Extortion/ransom by Non State Actors, Ceasefire and Armed Conflict
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Credibility +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Jackie Esmonde

Claimant's Counsel

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

William M. Davis

Presiding Member

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision Following Hearing (videoconference)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Colombo
  2. 2 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution linked to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether claimant would face risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return (s.97(1)(a),(b))

Ratio Decidendi

Colombo constitutes a viable internal flight alternative; claimant failed to prove it would be objectively unreasonable for him to relocate there or that he faces a serious possibility of persecution linked to a Convention ground or a likelihood of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment on return, therefore the claim fails under ss.96 and 97 of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA nor a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b).

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed; no protection granted