MB0-03209

MB0-03209

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection: documentary evidence and country reports demonstrate Algeria's capacity and efforts to counter terrorism; claimant's failure to seek local police protection and to claim asylum during a two‑and‑a‑half year stay in France, without convincing explanation, undermines his claim; credibility and procedural behavior did not alter the result; therefore he did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection under IRPA.

Citation
MB0-03209
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Membership of Terrorist Organization, Credibility, Recusal Motion, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country, Country Conditions, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Membership of Terrorist Organization Credibility Recusal Motion Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country +4 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Algeria was available and was reasonably accessible

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection: documentary evidence and country reports demonstrate Algeria's capacity and efforts to counter terrorism; claimant's failure to seek local police protection and to claim asylum during a two‑and‑a‑half year stay in France, without convincing explanation, undermines his claim; credibility and procedural behavior did not alter the result; therefore he did not prove a serious possibility of persecution or need for protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim of XXXXXXXXXXXX is rejected.
  • Motion for recusal by claimant's counsel is dismissed.