TA8-09870

TA8-09870

The claimant holds Trinidad citizenship and has no credible, more-than-mere-possibility risk of persecution there; state protection in Trinidad would be reasonably forthcoming and there was no persuasive evidence the assailant could or would locate and harm the claimant in Trinidad; therefore the claimant fails to prove a well-founded fear under s.96 and fails to establish prescribed harms under s.97, so the claim is rejected.

Citation
TA8-09870
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Claim (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Multiple Nationality, Well Founded Fear, Section 96 IRPA, Section 97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Multiple Nationality Well Founded Fear Section 96 IRPA +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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Claim (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in each country of nationality (Trinidad and St. Lucia)
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection is reasonably available in Trinidad
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and/or a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant holds Trinidad citizenship and has no credible, more-than-mere-possibility risk of persecution there; state protection in Trinidad would be reasonably forthcoming and there was no persuasive evidence the assailant could or would locate and harm the claimant in Trinidad; therefore the claimant fails to prove a well-founded fear under s.96 and fails to establish prescribed harms under s.97, so the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim under section 96 IRPA refused (not a Convention refugee)
  • Claim under section 97 IRPA refused (not a person in need of protection)