TA9-08133

The panel rejected the claim because the targeting resulted from being blamed as a scapegoat for an epidemic rather than persecution for a Convention ground (religion), credible internal/state protection options existed (including relocating where his church had no presence), and serious credibility concerns (including questionable police report authenticity and embellishments) undermined the claimant's case.

Citation: TA9-08133
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 8 February 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (hearing Concluded)
Outcome: Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics: Religion, Religious Practice, Victim of Criminality, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility
Source Language: English

Refugee Law Immigration Law Religion Religious Practice Victim of Criminality Nexus to Convention Grounds Internal Flight Alternative State Protection +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 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimant was persecuted on account of religion (nexus)
2 Whether state protection or internal flight alternative was available
3 Credibility and authenticity of evidence (police report)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.