TA5-13152

TA5-13152

The claimant failed to establish that state protection was unavailable: he reported attacks to police who took reports and investigated, provided no evidence police were complicit, and did not show he exhausted available remedies in a democratic state; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor a more‑likely‑than‑not risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim is dismissed.

Citation
TA5-13152
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Religious Belief, Religious Practice, Victims of Conflict, Hiding, State Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Nigeria
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Religious Belief Religious Practice Victims of Conflict Hiding +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces persecution on account of religion
  2. 2 Whether state protection was available to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that state protection was unavailable: he reported attacks to police who took reports and investigated, provided no evidence police were complicit, and did not show he exhausted available remedies in a democratic state; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution nor a more‑likely‑than‑not risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment, and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

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