TA7-14237

TA7-14237

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof: the panel found the testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and lack of travel documentation, failure to seek protection in safe transit countries, and the risk alleged was general criminality by non-state actors rather than persecution by state actors, so neither IRPA refugee protection nor Convention Against Torture applies.

Citation
TA7-14237
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Persecution, Torture, Credibility, Safe Third Country, Travel Documents
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection International Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Persecution Torture Credibility +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, nationality or membership in a particular social group (family)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's testimony and travel history are credible and sufficient to discharge burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the claimant sought protection in safe transit countries and the impact of failure to do so on subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof: the panel found the testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and lack of travel documentation, failure to seek protection in safe transit countries, and the risk alleged was general criminality by non-state actors rather than persecution by state actors, so neither IRPA refugee protection nor Convention Against Torture applies.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim dismissed

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act