TB0-08173

TB0-08173

The Panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible on the determinative issues and that, alternatively, objective country evidence demonstrates durable, effective improvements since 2009 such that the claimant does not face a well‑founded fear; additionally, any risk he might face is a generalized criminal/extortion risk excluded by s.97(1)(b), therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB0-08173
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Change in Country Conditions, Generalized Risk, Exclusion Under S.97(1)(b)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Change in Country Conditions +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's fear is well-founded
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant's testimony
  3. 3 Whether changed country conditions negate risk

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible on the determinative issues and that, alternatively, objective country evidence demonstrates durable, effective improvements since 2009 such that the claimant does not face a well‑founded fear; additionally, any risk he might face is a generalized criminal/extortion risk excluded by s.97(1)(b), therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA is rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection