TB1-00040

TB1-00040

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found the claimant not credible, the alleged harms are criminal extortion rather than persecution linked to a Convention ground, the claimant provided no persuasive evidence of being on any watch list, he abandoned apparent protection in the U.S., and objective country evidence shows improved and durable conditions in Sri Lanka such that there is less than a serious possibility of persecution; alternatively the risk is generalized and excluded under s97(1)(b)(ii); therefore the claim fails under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB1-00040
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Section 97 Protection, Credibility Findings, Change of Country Conditions, Generalized Risk, Nexus, Extortion, Protection Elsewhere
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Section 97 Protection Credibility Findings +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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant established nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Panel found the claimant not credible, the alleged harms are criminal extortion rather than persecution linked to a Convention ground, the claimant provided no persuasive evidence of being on any watch list, he abandoned apparent protection in the U.S., and objective country evidence shows improved and durable conditions in Sri Lanka such that there is less than a serious possibility of persecution; alternatively the risk is generalized and excluded under s97(1)(b)(ii); therefore the claim fails under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection is rejected