MA9-11186

The claim was rejected because the Tribunal found the claimant not credible and his allegations uncorroborated and implausible; additionally objective risk was negated by changed country conditions after the LTTE defeat and an internal flight alternative was available, so he is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation: MA9-11186
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 18 March 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection RPD / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome: Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics: Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Change in Country Conditions, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Torture, Arbitrary Detention, Asylum Forum Shopping, Sponsorship Pending
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Change in Country Conditions Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +4 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

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection RPD / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

1 Credibility of claimant
2 Whether claimant meets definition of Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Orders

Claim for refugee protection rejected