TB2-05221

TB2-05221

The panel refused protection because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in India, was found partially not credible due to lack of corroboration and inconsistencies, and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Calcutta, Delhi or Goa; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1).

Citation
TB2-05221
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97(1) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claimants' refugee claims are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not in need of protection under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Domestic Violence, Credibility, Re‑availment, Torture and Risk to Life
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Domestic Violence +3 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97(1) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on membership of a particular social group (domestic violence)
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection was available in India
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Calcutta, Delhi, Goa) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The panel refused protection because the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in India, was found partially not credible due to lack of corroboration and inconsistencies, and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Calcutta, Delhi or Goa; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claimants' refugee claims are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not in need of protection under IRPA s.96 and s.97(1).

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected.