TA9-12820

The claimant's refugee claim is rejected because he failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution and the Panel found viable internal flight alternatives where state protection would be available; consequently he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation: TA9-12820
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 2 May 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome: Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics: Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution by Family Members, Chieftaincy Dispute, Well Founded Fear, Burden of Proof
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution by Family Members Chieftaincy Dispute Well Founded Fear +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

XXXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) is available
2 Whether state protection is available or the state is complicit
3 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution on Convention grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

Refugee protection claim denied