MA9-08346

MA9-08346

The Panel concluded that, on objective grounds, the claimant's mistreatment arose from a commercial dispute and the claimant could reasonably relocate to large Indian cities or work in other industries using his skills; his family remaining safely in India supported availability of an internal flight alternative; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA9-08346
Parties
Claimant: Mr. XXXXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (inland) / Decision Claim Refused (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim refused; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Torture, Detention, Religion Based Persecution, Commercial Dispute, Change of Circumstances
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Refugee Protection International Human Rights Detention and Torture Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Torture +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. XXXXXX

Claimant

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (inland) / Decision Claim Refused (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons including religion
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment on return
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative within India is reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel concluded that, on objective grounds, the claimant's mistreatment arose from a commercial dispute and the claimant could reasonably relocate to large Indian cities or work in other industries using his skills; his family remaining safely in India supported availability of an internal flight alternative; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim refused; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection