MA6-03484

MA6-03484

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection (did not adequately seek or document protection in Peru), contradicted his own testimony, and failed to claim asylum while in the United States; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture and the refugee protection claim is rejected.

Citation
MA6-03484
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Tribunal Member: Me Guy Lebel; Claimant's Counsel: Me Serban-Mihai Tismanariu; Tribunal Officer: François Toupin; Respondent/minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (no counsel)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Onus of Proof, Corruption, Harassment, Employment Dispute, Credibility Assessment, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Failure to Seek Asylum in Third Country, Risk of Persecution, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Onus of Proof Corruption Harassment Employment Dispute +5 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Guy Lebel

Tribunal Member

Me Serban-Mihai Tismanariu

Claimant's Counsel

François Toupin

Tribunal Officer

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (no counsel)

Respondent/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether Peruvian state protection is available and was sought

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection (did not adequately seek or document protection in Peru), contradicted his own testimony, and failed to claim asylum while in the United States; accordingly there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture and the refugee protection claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; refugee protection claim rejected