TB1-13629

TB1-13629

The Panel rejected the claim because on the balance of probabilities the claimant was not credible on crucial aspects, the incidents alleged are characterized as ordinary criminality/extortion without nexus to a Convention ground, the claimant is not and would not be perceived as LTTE‑linked, country conditions have materially improved for Tamils not linked to LTTE, and any remaining risk is generalized and excluded under section 97(1)(b)(ii).

Citation
TB1-13629
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Generalized Risk, Credibility Assessment, Change of Country Conditions, Nexus to Convention Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Generalized Risk Credibility Assessment Change of Country Conditions +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's testimony is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim because on the balance of probabilities the claimant was not credible on crucial aspects, the incidents alleged are characterized as ordinary criminality/extortion without nexus to a Convention ground, the claimant is not and would not be perceived as LTTE‑linked, country conditions have materially improved for Tamils not linked to LTTE, and any remaining risk is generalized and excluded under section 97(1)(b)(ii).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA