Persuasive Decisions
Persuasive Decisions are decisions that have been identified by a Division
head as being of persuasive value in developing the jurisprudence of
the Division. They are decisions that decision-makers are encouraged
to rely upon in the interests of consistency and collegiality.
The application of persuasive decisions by the Division enables the
Division to move toward a consistent and transparent application of questions
of law or of mixed law and fact. Their designation promotes efficiency
in the hearing and reasons writing process by making use of quality work
done by colleagues within the tribunal.
Unlike Jurisprudential Guides, decision-makers are not required to explain
their decision not to apply a persuasive decision in appropriate circumstances.
Their application is voluntary.
Refugee Protection Division
MA4-04467 (December
2005)
This decision has
persuasive value with respect to claims from Colombia made on the Convention
ground of political opinion (including imputed
political opinion) or, where applicable, on the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act section
97 grounds, where the agent of persecution is an armed group (FARC, ELN or
paramilitaries). The reasons conclude with a finding that the documentary
evidence supports a conclusion that for such claimants, state protection
is not available. Notice
of Identification
MA2-00869 (January
2003)
(Revoked, December 2005)
The standard of proof to be applied in claims relying on the Convention
Against Torture (CAT)
(s. 97(1)(a) of
the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act). See Policy
Note - Notice of Revocation.
MA1-10302 (January 2003)
Where a claim is made pursuant to s. 97(1)(b),
the claimant must demonstrate that there is no internal flight alternative
because the risk of harm extends to every part of the country of reference.
The reasonableness of the internal flight alternative (IFA)
is not relevant. This decision highlights the fact that an IFA analysis
for a claim based on risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment,
is not the same as an IFA analysis
where the claim is based on the Convention Refugee definition, and that
the pervasive nature of risk is the sole factor to consider under s. 97(1)(b).
|