TB8-17106

TB8-17106

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant's evidence is insufficiently credible and corroborative documents lack probative value to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or the higher s.97 risk; alternatively, even accepting the claim, a reasonable and attainable IFA exists in Islamabad, so removal of protection is justified; thus RPD's refusal is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Citation
TB8-17106
Parties
Appellant / Person in Cause: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed — Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection (paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Gender Based Persecution, Admissibility of New Evidence, Oral Hearing Under S.110(6), Reavailment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person in Cause

Minister of Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant established a well‑founded fear of persecution as a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant is a person in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and probative value of the Appellant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant's evidence is insufficiently credible and corroborative documents lack probative value to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution or the higher s.97 risk; alternatively, even accepting the claim, a reasonable and attainable IFA exists in Islamabad, so removal of protection is justified; thus RPD's refusal is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed — Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection (paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA).

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed