TA5-15026

TA5-15026

On the balance of probabilities the claimant's central allegation of a written death threat was not proven and material inconsistencies justified negative inferences; the claimant failed to adequately seek or test state protection and country evidence showed non‑enforcement and some societal improvement, therefore he did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or inability of the state to protect him.

Citation
TA5-15026
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX); Refugee Protection Officer: K. Fainbloom; Minister Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation, Persecution, State Protection, Credibility and Inconsistency, Harassment, Negative Inference
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Protection Human Rights Criminal Law Sexual Orientation Persecution State Protection Credibility and Inconsistency +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX)

Claimant

K. Fainbloom

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister's Counsel

Minister Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant's narrative concerning destruction of his shop
  2. 2 Whether claimant suffered persecution as a result of his sexual orientation
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant's central allegation of a written death threat was not proven and material inconsistencies justified negative inferences; the claimant failed to adequately seek or test state protection and country evidence showed non‑enforcement and some societal improvement, therefore he did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or inability of the state to protect him.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's refugee protection claim