TB0-09616

TB0-09616

Because the claimant's account lacked sufficient credibility and corroboration, the alleged harm was not shown to be individualized or connected to a Convention ground, and objective country evidence showed that post‑conflict changes reduced the likelihood of targeted persecution or torture, the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture; therefore the claim is rejected under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-09616
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Country Conditions, Torture, Persecution, Change in Country Conditions, Detention, Extortion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Country Conditions Torture +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well‑founded fear of persecution for Convention grounds (race, nationality, political opinion, membership of a particular social group)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA (risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture)
  3. 3 Credibility and corroboration of claimant's account

Ratio Decidendi

Because the claimant's account lacked sufficient credibility and corroboration, the alleged harm was not shown to be individualized or connected to a Convention ground, and objective country evidence showed that post‑conflict changes reduced the likelihood of targeted persecution or torture, the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture; therefore the claim is rejected under s.96 and s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.