TB1-07315

TB1-07315

The claims are rejected because the claimants' evidence lacked sufficient credibility and they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Namibia could not protect them; documentary country evidence shows adequate state protection (police procedures, WCPUs and support services), so the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the criteria of ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA are not met.

Citation
TB1-07315
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX (AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Merits Following Hearing May 6, 2014
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Child Protection, Persecution Based on Hiv/aids Myths
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Assessment Child Protection Persecution Based on Hiv/aids Myths

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX (AKA XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Merits Following Hearing May 6, 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are rejected because the claimants' evidence lacked sufficient credibility and they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Namibia could not protect them; documentary country evidence shows adequate state protection (police procedures, WCPUs and support services), so the presumption of state protection was not rebutted and the criteria of ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA are not met.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • The Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the three claimants dated June 26, 2014.