TA9-15224

TA9-15224

Because the panel found the claimant not credible on central matters (conversion, assaults, police persecution), found no subjective fear and no objective basis for persecution, and identified a viable internal flight alternative (Ankara), the claim was rejected as neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-15224
Parties
Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Government of Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Credibility, Religious Conversion, Persecution by State Actors, Persecution by Family Members, Internal Flight Alternative, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Countries, Omissions and Inconsistencies in Evidence, Sojourning/reavailment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Credibility Religious Conversion Persecution by State Actors Persecution by Family Members Internal Flight Alternative +3 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Minister (Government of Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether there is an objective basis for a risk of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

Because the panel found the claimant not credible on central matters (conversion, assaults, police persecution), found no subjective fear and no objective basis for persecution, and identified a viable internal flight alternative (Ankara), the claim was rejected as neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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