MA5-05059

MA5-05059

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible and accepted documentary evidence that Sikh militancy in Punjab had largely disappeared and that internal relocation within India was viable; accordingly the claimant failed to establish persecution by reason of religion or a need for protection and the refugee claim was rejected.

Citation
MA5-05059
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Jean-Franois Bertrand; Refugee Protection Officer: Normand Leduc; Panel Member: Roger Houde; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant not found to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Religion, Imputed Political Opinion, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Torture, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Religion Imputed Political Opinion Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Torture +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Jean-Franois Bertrand

Claimant's Counsel

Normand Leduc

Refugee Protection Officer

Roger Houde

Panel Member

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 (persecution by reason of religion)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's account of detention and torture

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's testimony as not credible and accepted documentary evidence that Sikh militancy in Punjab had largely disappeared and that internal relocation within India was viable; accordingly the claimant failed to establish persecution by reason of religion or a need for protection and the refugee claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected; claimant not found to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection