AA5-00156

AA5-00156

The claim was rejected because the claimant's subjective fear lacked credibility, objective country evidence indicated no individualized risk tied to his family name, the claimant failed to seek protection in the United States and delayed claiming in Canada, and the risk described was generalized rather than a Convention ground; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
AA5-00156
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Kerry Murphy; Panel Chair: William M. Davis
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following RPD Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Risk Assessment, Credibility, Safe Third Country, Delay in Claiming, Generalized Risk, Imputed Political Opinion, Illegal Entry, Detention
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Risk Assessment Credibility +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Kerry Murphy

Refugee Protection Officer

William M. Davis

Panel Chair

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following RPD Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces individualized risk as opposed to generalized insecurity
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant's subjective fear lacked credibility, objective country evidence indicated no individualized risk tied to his family name, the claimant failed to seek protection in the United States and delayed claiming in Canada, and the risk described was generalized rather than a Convention ground; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not in need of protection under section 97(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX is rejected