TA6-04942

TA6-04942

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible due to serious omissions, contradictions and lack of corroboration; there was insufficient evidence that the alleged influential persecutor exists or would place the claimant at serious risk, and the claimant failed to rebut the availability of an internal flight alternative or state protection, therefore he is an economic migrant not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TA6-04942
Parties
Claimant: XX XXX XX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Hearing and Negative Decision on Claim
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection refused; negative decision
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Definition, Persecution by Non State Actors, Section 97 Protection (risk to Life/torture)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Definition Persecution by Non State Actors Section 97 Protection (risk to Life/torture)

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XX XXX XX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Hearing and Negative Decision on Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether claimant has nexus to Convention refugee grounds (membership of particular social group: individuals fleeing crime)
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a serious risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture under s.97(1)(b) of IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible due to serious omissions, contradictions and lack of corroboration; there was insufficient evidence that the alleged influential persecutor exists or would place the claimant at serious risk, and the claimant failed to rebut the availability of an internal flight alternative or state protection, therefore he is an economic migrant not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection refused; negative decision

Orders

  • Claim declined; refugee protection denied