MB7-08006

MB7-08006

The Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she faces individualized persecution on account of imputed political opinion given her inconsistent testimony, lack of corroboration from central witnesses, credible alternative explanation that the harm arose from criminal extortion linked to her husband’s wealth, and the existence of a viable internal flight alternative (Chittagong); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Citation
MB7-08006
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Refugee claim dismissed; Claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Imputed Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Persecution +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant established nexus between harm feared and imputed political opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she faces individualized persecution on account of imputed political opinion given her inconsistent testimony, lack of corroboration from central witnesses, credible alternative explanation that the harm arose from criminal extortion linked to her husband’s wealth, and the existence of a viable internal flight alternative (Chittagong); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim dismissed; Claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed