TA7-10162

TA7-10162

The claimant's incidents were tied to his agricultural business and local extortion rather than sustained persecution for a Convention ground; an internal flight alternative existed and it was not unreasonable to pursue other livelihoods, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA7-10162
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Ethnicity, Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Ethnicity +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative in Ukraine

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's incidents were tied to his agricultural business and local extortion rather than sustained persecution for a Convention ground; an internal flight alternative existed and it was not unreasonable to pursue other livelihoods, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected