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
TA4-17681 (December
2006)
These are the reasons
for the decision that the refugee claimant is not a Convention refugee
or a person in need of protection as defined in sections 96 and 97(1)
of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
The claimant, a citizen of Mexico, sought protection on the basis of the
Mexican state’s inability to protect him from criminality by common
criminals because of corruption within the police. The reasons for decision
conclude that the documentary evidence supports the finding that, for
such claimants, state protection is available.
TA4-10802 & T4A-10803 (December
2006)
These are the reasons
for the decision that two refugee claimants are not Convention refugees
or persons in need of protection as defined in sections 96 and 97(1) of
the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act
(IRPA).
The claimants, citizens of Mexico, sought protection on the Convention
ground of membership in a particular social group on the basis of their
sexual orientation. The reasons for decision conclude that the documentary
evidence supports a finding that, for such claimants, an internal flight
alternative in Mexico City is available.
TA4-18833 (December
2006)
These are the reasons
for the decision that the refugee claimant is not a Convention refugee
or a person in need of protection as defined in sections 96 and 97(1)
of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act.
The claimant, a citizen of Mexico, sought protection on the basis of the
Mexican state’s inability to protect him from criminality by common
criminals because of corruption within the police. The reasons for decision
conclude that the documentary evidence supports the finding that, for
such claimants, adequate state protection is available.
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).
|