MA7-02601

MA7-02601

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to satisfy the burden of proof: his testimony was found not credible and inconsistent with his PIF and witness evidence, there is no persuasive nexus showing he would be persecuted for an imputed political opinion, and the alleged risk of kidnapping as a diaspora returnee is generalized rather than individualized under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
MA7-02601
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Claude Whalen; Panel Member / Decision Maker: Me Eveline Fiset; Tribunal Officer: Pierre Benoit Fortin; Witness: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Merits Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Imputed Political Opinion, Credibility Assessment, Country Conditions, Sojourning / Diaspora Risk, Kidnapping Risk
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Imputed Political Opinion Credibility Assessment Country Conditions +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Claude Whalen

Claimant's Counsel

Me Eveline Fiset

Panel Member / Decision Maker

Pierre Benoit Fortin

Tribunal Officer

XXXX XXXX

Witness

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Merits Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA based on imputed political opinion
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA as a member of the diaspora perceived as wealthy and at risk of kidnapping
  3. 3 Whether claimant's testimony and documentary evidence meet the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to satisfy the burden of proof: his testimony was found not credible and inconsistent with his PIF and witness evidence, there is no persuasive nexus showing he would be persecuted for an imputed political opinion, and the alleged risk of kidnapping as a diaspora returnee is generalized rather than individualized under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected