TB0-08544

TB0-08544

The panel rejected the claim because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant was not credible and was not perceived by Sri Lankan authorities as affiliated with the LTTE, and the alleged risk from EPDP/rogue elements amounted to generalized criminal extortion excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii); therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-08544
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Final Decision of Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claim rejected: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Generalized Risk, Exclusion Under S.97(1)(b)(ii)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Generalized Risk Exclusion Under S.97(1)(b)(ii)

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Final Decision of Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)

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) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and documentary support

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant was not credible and was not perceived by Sri Lankan authorities as affiliated with the LTTE, and the alleged risk from EPDP/rogue elements amounted to generalized criminal extortion excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii); therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim rejected; RPD decision dated September 17, 2013