TB0-12713

TB0-12713

The claim was rejected because the Panel found the principal claimant's evidence cumulatively not credible and, in the alternative, concluded on a balance of probabilities that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Abuja or Onitsha, and there was no substantiated risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment; accordingly the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-12713
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim After Hearing (hearing: November 15, 2011; Decision: December 6, 2011)
Outcome
All claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Convention Against Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution +1 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim After Hearing (hearing: November 15, 2011; Decision: December 6, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA (risk of torture/cruel treatment)
  3. 3 Whether claimant's testimony is credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the Panel found the principal claimant's evidence cumulatively not credible and, in the alternative, concluded on a balance of probabilities that a viable internal flight alternative exists in Abuja or Onitsha, and there was no substantiated risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment; accordingly the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

All claims rejected

Orders

  • Refuse principal claimant's refugee protection claim pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Reject the four minor claimants' refugee protection claims (dependent on principal claimant and, where applicable, assessed against other nationalities)