VA9-00112

VA9-00112

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because documentary and country evidence demonstrate Mauritania and UNHCR efforts to repatriate and reintegrate Afro‑Mauritanian returnees and there is no clear and convincing evidence that the claimant would face persecution or lack of state protection if returned; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
VA9-00112
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (rpd Oral and Written Reasons)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Ethnic/racial Persecution, Repatriation and Reintegration, Burden of Proof, Identity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights State Protection Ethnic/racial Persecution Repatriation and Reintegration Burden of Proof Identity

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (rpd Oral and Written Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant has a well‑founded fear of persecution based on ethnicity/race (Halpulaar/Fula)
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Mauritania is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because documentary and country evidence demonstrate Mauritania and UNHCR efforts to repatriate and reintegrate Afro‑Mauritanian returnees and there is no clear and convincing evidence that the claimant would face persecution or lack of state protection if returned; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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