VB6-04153

VB6-04153

The claimant's account contained significant, unexplained contradictions with his contemporaneous police report undermining credibility; he failed to establish that the feared extortion was persecution linked to a Convention ground and, even if credible, the risk was local and an objectively reasonable internal flight alternative existed (Santa Ana or La Union); therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
VB6-04153
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Risk of Persecution, Extortion by Gangs
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Immigration (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has established nexus between feared harm and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's account contained significant, unexplained contradictions with his contemporaneous police report undermining credibility; he failed to establish that the feared extortion was persecution linked to a Convention ground and, even if credible, the risk was local and an objectively reasonable internal flight alternative existed (Santa Ana or La Union); therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim rejected