TB1-13815

TB1-13815

Although claimants were found credible about past experiences, objective country evidence and facts of the individual cases do not establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture/cruel treatment; reasonable internal flight alternatives (Walvis Bay or Windhoek) exist, therefore claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-13815
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Merits Hearing (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Sexual Orientation Persecution, Forced Prostitution, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Sexual Orientation Persecution Forced Prostitution +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Merits Hearing (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Although claimants were found credible about past experiences, objective country evidence and facts of the individual cases do not establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture/cruel treatment; reasonable internal flight alternatives (Walvis Bay or Windhoek) exist, therefore claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim rejected
  • Decision and reasons dated May 9, 2019