TB7-22488

TB7-22488

The panel rejected key aspects of the principal claimant's testimony as not plausible and insufficiently supported by reliable evidence, found on a balance of probabilities that the Taliban had not credibly targeted the claimants, concluded viable IFAs exist in Rawalpindi, Lahore or Faisalabad where persecution is not a serious possibility and relocation would be reasonable, and found state protection available; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-22488
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision at the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Credibility Assessment

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Female Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision at the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants meet the definition of a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Credibility of the principal claimant's allegations of Taliban targeting
  3. 3 Whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected key aspects of the principal claimant's testimony as not plausible and insufficiently supported by reliable evidence, found on a balance of probabilities that the Taliban had not credibly targeted the claimants, concluded viable IFAs exist in Rawalpindi, Lahore or Faisalabad where persecution is not a serious possibility and relocation would be reasonable, and found state protection available; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims rejected by Refugee Protection Division on November 25, 2020