TB0-09596

TB0-09596

The claimant failed to discharge the onus of proof due to deficiencies in credibility and lack of corroborating documentation; the evidence showed the police interest was limited to the local DPO and did not amount to a real risk of persecution nationwide, and a viable internal flight alternative (e.g. Lagos or Ibadan) existed; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB0-09596
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (october 21, 2011)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Corroboration, State Agents (police), Removal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Corroboration +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision (october 21, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Claimant identity and nationality
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant and failure to provide corroboration
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces persecution by Nigerian Police

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to discharge the onus of proof due to deficiencies in credibility and lack of corroborating documentation; the evidence showed the police interest was limited to the local DPO and did not amount to a real risk of persecution nationwide, and a viable internal flight alternative (e.g. Lagos or Ibadan) existed; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division (Decision dated October 21, 2011)