MA4-06538

MA4-06538

Minister failed to meet the 'serious reasons for considering' standard under Article 1F; claimant's subjective fear was undermined by delay in claiming protection and multiple inconsistencies, and documentary evidence plus available remedies in India did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on the balance of probabilities; therefore claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA4-06538
Parties
Applicant/claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Respondent/intervenor: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing De Novo Decision (rpd)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Exclusion Under Article 1 F, Crimes Against Humanity, Delay in Making Claim, Minister's Intervention
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Exclusion (article 1 F) State Protection Credibility Exclusion Under Article 1 F Crimes Against Humanity +2 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Applicant/claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent/intervenor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing De Novo Decision (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is excluded under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention for complicity in crimes against humanity
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's subjective fear of persecution is credible
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in India

Ratio Decidendi

Minister failed to meet the 'serious reasons for considering' standard under Article 1F; claimant's subjective fear was undermined by delay in claiming protection and multiple inconsistencies, and documentary evidence plus available remedies in India did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on the balance of probabilities; therefore claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX XXXXX is rejected.
  • Minister's allegation of exclusion under Article 1F not established; exclusion not found.