TA4-18821

TA4-18821

The panel found the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on Convention grounds or a personal risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture: the evidence showed generalized discrimination mitigated by ability to worship in Indonesia, credible documentary country evidence of government efforts, and a material omission undermining the claimant's case; therefore the claim is rejected.

Citation
TA4-18821
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: C. Forbes; Refugee Protection Officer: Maria Sack; Designated Representative: Designated Representative; Respondent: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Religious Belief, Ethnic Discrimination, Risk of Persecution, Protection Claim, Country Conditions, Convention Refugee, Non‑refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Religious Belief Ethnic Discrimination Risk of Persecution Protection Claim Country Conditions +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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

C. Forbes

Decision Maker

Maria Sack

Refugee Protection Officer

Designated Representative

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces a well‑founded fear of persecution in Indonesia on the grounds of religion (Pentecostal Christianity) or ethnicity (Chinese)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection (risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment on return)
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is individualized persecution or a generalized risk faced by a group

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution on Convention grounds or a personal risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment or torture: the evidence showed generalized discrimination mitigated by ability to worship in Indonesia, credible documentary country evidence of government efforts, and a material omission undermining the claimant's case; therefore the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected.