TA1-16274

TA1-16274

The panel applied res judicata principles and the Adjei standard and found the claimants presented no new evidence of changed country conditions; documentary evidence did not support a serious possibility of persecution, forced recruitment in Colombo, or detention/torture risk; therefore the repeat claims fail and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA1-16274
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Repeat Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants determined not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Particular Social Group, Persecution, Repeat Claim, Forced Recruitment, Cease Fire
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Res Judicata Particular Social Group Persecution Repeat Claim Forced Recruitment Cease Fire

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Repeat Claim / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether res judicata bars the repeat claim
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees based on membership of Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 of IRPA (risk of torture or risk to life/cruel treatment)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel applied res judicata principles and the Adjei standard and found the claimants presented no new evidence of changed country conditions; documentary evidence did not support a serious possibility of persecution, forced recruitment in Colombo, or detention/torture risk; therefore the repeat claims fail and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants determined not to be Convention refugees and not to be persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims rejected; claimants determined not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection