MA9-06739

MA9-06739

The Tribunal found the claimant's testimony not sufficiently credible or corroborated, concluded there was no established nexus to a Convention ground, determined State protection (police and Marion House) would likely be available, and found a potential internal flight alternative; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under s96 or a risk to life/cruel treatment under s97(1)(b), and the claim was dismissed.

Citation
MA9-06739
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative (praida): XXXX-XXXX; Guardian and Witness: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (section 96 and 97) / Hearing and Oral Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Designated Representative, Minor Claimant, Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Delay in Making a Claim, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Humanitarian and Compassionate Application
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Child Protection Administrative Law Designated Representative Minor Claimant Credibility State Protection +5 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXX-XXXX

Designated Representative (praida)

XXXX XXXX

Guardian and Witness

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (section 96 and 97) / Hearing and Oral Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant's testimony and consistency with Port of Entry notes
  2. 2 Whether claimant established nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Availability and adequacy of State protection in Saint Vincent

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the claimant's testimony not sufficiently credible or corroborated, concluded there was no established nexus to a Convention ground, determined State protection (police and Marion House) would likely be available, and found a potential internal flight alternative; therefore the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under s96 or a risk to life/cruel treatment under s97(1)(b), and the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Claimant encouraged to file an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds