TB3-04463

TB3-04463

The panel found the claimant not credible due to inconsistencies and implausibilities, concluded the alleged extortion was criminal and generalized rather than persecution for a Convention ground, and therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment; claim dismissed under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB3-04463
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Well Founded Fear, Persecution (ethnicity), Risk of Torture, Generalized Risk Vs. Individualized Risk, Non Refoulement, Extortion/financially Motivated Harm
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Assessment Well Founded Fear Persecution (ethnicity) Risk of Torture Generalized Risk Vs. Individualized Risk +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a credible witness
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground (Tamil ethnicity)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant faces a personal risk of torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant not credible due to inconsistencies and implausibilities, concluded the alleged extortion was criminal and generalized rather than persecution for a Convention ground, and therefore the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or a personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment; claim dismissed under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; removal allowed (claim rejected by RPD)