MA5-00651

MA5-00651

The tribunal found the claimant was a victim of extortion by local police that was not linked to any Convention ground and that credible country evidence established a reasonably accessible internal flight alternative in India; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA5-00651
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jean-François Bertrand; Refugee Protection Officer: Jocelyne Senecal; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX; Panel: Jean Prévost; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Persecution of Family Members, Arbitrary Arrest and Detention, Torture, Internal Flight Alternative, Minors, Gender: Male, Negative Decision, Country: India
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Refugee Protection Persecution of Family Members Arbitrary Arrest and Detention Torture Internal Flight Alternative Minors +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Jean-François Bertrand

Claimant's Counsel

Jocelyne Senecal

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Jean Prévost

Panel

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant was persecuted for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether extortion by police constitutes persecution linked to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether the claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee under IRPA s.96

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the claimant was a victim of extortion by local police that was not linked to any Convention ground and that credible country evidence established a reasonably accessible internal flight alternative in India; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Application for refugee protection rejected