MA4-06734

MA4-06734

The claim is rejected because the decision-maker found the claimant not credible about his subjective fear and reasons for flight, concluded state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available and that the claimant unreasonably failed to seek them, and therefore the claimant failed to prove he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection; CAT did not apply because alleged perpetrators were non-state actors without state responsibility.

Citation
MA4-06734
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Against Torture, Ethnic Origin, Imputed Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Human Rights Convention Refugee Credibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Convention Against Torture +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established a well-founded fear of persecution by FNL Palipehutu for reasons of ethnic origin or imputed political opinion
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant's testimony regarding events and fear
  3. 3 Whether state protection was available and claimant unreasonably failed to seek it

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the decision-maker found the claimant not credible about his subjective fear and reasons for flight, concluded state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available and that the claimant unreasonably failed to seek them, and therefore the claimant failed to prove he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection; CAT did not apply because alleged perpetrators were non-state actors without state responsibility.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected
  • Claimant is not a "Convention refugee" within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act