TA3-21649

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities and did not demonstrate that the feared harm is linked to a Convention ground; credibility concerns and the evidence showed generalized criminality rather than persecution for political opinion, therefore the claim for refugee protection is rejected.

Citation: TA3-21649
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 23 February 2006
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision After Merits Hearing
Outcome: Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and not a person in need of protection under section 97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics: Political Opinion, State Protection, Credibility, Delay/laches, Generalized Violence Vs Convention Grounds
Source Language: English

Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Political Opinion State Protection Credibility Delay/laches +1 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 5 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision After Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

1 jurisdiction to hear second claim (delay/laches)
2 credibility of claimant
3 availability and adequacy of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

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