MA9-11438

MA9-11438

The Panel accepted the claimant's testimony in part but concluded that on the balance of probabilities an internal flight alternative existed in Bangalore, Mumbai or Rajasthan and that the claimant and his cousin did not have the profile of hardcore militants who would be pursued nationwide; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA9-11438
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jean-Francois Bertrand; Tribunal: Me Haig Basmajian; Tribunal Officer: Myriam De Bailleul; Minister's Counsel: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Before the Refugee Protection Division; Decision Issued
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Torture, Arrest and Detention, Reavailment, Work Permit
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Torture +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Me Jean-Francois Bertrand

Claimant's Counsel

Me Haig Basmajian

Tribunal

Myriam De Bailleul

Tribunal Officer

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Before the Refugee Protection Division; Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA (risk of torture)
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative within India is reasonable and accessible

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel accepted the claimant's testimony in part but concluded that on the balance of probabilities an internal flight alternative existed in Bangalore, Mumbai or Rajasthan and that the claimant and his cousin did not have the profile of hardcore militants who would be pursued nationwide; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim of Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX is rejected