MB5-02104

MB5-02104

The claimant did not discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or that he would face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment if relocated to Douala or Yaoundé because villagers showed low interest in finding him, he could be replaced as oracle, no evidence his family had been targeted since he fled, and the size and anonymity of the cities make detection unlikely; therefore claim is rejected.

Citation
MB5-02104
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision
Outcome
refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Burden of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established a serious possibility of persecution on return to Cameroon
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative to Douala or Yaoundé would avoid risk
  3. 3 Whether claimant met balance of probabilities for person in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not discharge the burden to show a serious possibility of persecution or that he would face a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment if relocated to Douala or Yaoundé because villagers showed low interest in finding him, he could be replaced as oracle, no evidence his family had been targeted since he fled, and the size and anonymity of the cities make detection unlikely; therefore claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection is rejected