MA7-05673

MA7-05673

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would be persecuted for a Convention ground or face a real risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; he failed to rebut the Ward presumption of available state protection and documentary evidence shows improved country conditions after the defeat of the LTTE, while wealth does not constitute a particular social group.

Citation
MA7-05673
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Fred Saikali; Panel Member: Tracey Ann Martineau; Tribunal Officer: Honor Weston
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at First Instance
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Torture and Cruel Treatment, Credibility, Particular Social Group, Non Refoulement, Gang Violence, Corruption
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Torture and Cruel Treatment Credibility +4 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Fred Saikali

Claimant's Counsel

Tracey Ann Martineau

Panel Member

Honor Weston

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant meets definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA (risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Availability of state protection and burden to rebut Ward presumption

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would be persecuted for a Convention ground or face a real risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return; he failed to rebut the Ward presumption of available state protection and documentary evidence shows improved country conditions after the defeat of the LTTE, while wealth does not constitute a particular social group.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.