TB0-10798

TB0-10798

The claimant's claimed risk from arrest, interrogation and extortion is generalized and faced by large subsets of the Sri Lankan population and arises from criminality and security screening rather than persecution for a Convention ground; combined with material credibility deficiencies and failure to seek protection in transit countries, the claimant did not establish a well-founded fear or nexus and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB0-10798
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of Refugee Protection Division
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, Generalized Risk, Credibility, Extortion, Country Conditions, Agent of Persecution, Third Safe Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Generalized Risk Credibility +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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is personalized or is a generalized risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claimed risk from arrest, interrogation and extortion is generalized and faced by large subsets of the Sri Lankan population and arises from criminality and security screening rather than persecution for a Convention ground; combined with material credibility deficiencies and failure to seek protection in transit countries, the claimant did not establish a well-founded fear or nexus and is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied (not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA)
  • Claimant not a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA