TB1-17733

TB1-17733

The panel rejected the claimant's account as not credible and insufficiently corroborated, found documentary evidence established the availability of effective state protection in Namibia, and concluded the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-17733
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility, Gender Related Persecution, HIV Discrimination, Forced/child Marriage
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Gender Related Persecution +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established well-founded fear of persecution by private actor (uncle/cousin)
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Namibia is unavailable or ineffective
  3. 3 Whether claimant was discriminated against due to HIV status amounting to persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimant's account as not credible and insufficiently corroborated, found documentary evidence established the availability of effective state protection in Namibia, and concluded the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claims dismissed
  • No protection granted