TB7-02631

TB7-02631

The claimant's claim was dismissed because he failed to meet his onus: he did not establish credible subjective fear and his conduct and explanations indicated asylum shopping; there was no evidence of a change in US law or a real risk of removal to Syria and the Safe Third Country Agreement militated against granting protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-02631
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA denied
Legal Topics
Safe Third Country Agreement, Credibility, Asylum Shopping, Subjective Fear, Sexual Orientation, Persecution, Refugee Definition
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Safe Third Country Agreement Credibility Asylum Shopping Subjective Fear Sexual Orientation +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing and Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant met the burden to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant established a risk under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant and impact of credibility findings on the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claim was dismissed because he failed to meet his onus: he did not establish credible subjective fear and his conduct and explanations indicated asylum shopping; there was no evidence of a change in US law or a real risk of removal to Syria and the Safe Third Country Agreement militated against granting protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA denied

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • No protection granted under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.