TB2-12538

TB2-12538

The panel found the claimant's core escape evidence not credible, the fear of harm speculative and unsupported by evidence of the madam's capacity to kill or to corrupt police, and that a reasonable and viable internal flight alternative existed in major Nigerian cities; accordingly the claimant failed to establish an objective risk of persecution or need for protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA and the claim was rejected.

Citation
TB2-12538
Parties
Claimant / Asylum Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Immigration (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Merits (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Gender Guidelines, Sexual Assault/trafficking Allegations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Trafficking Gender Based Asylum Convention Refugee Definition Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment State Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant / Asylum Claimant

Minister of Immigration (Canada)

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision on Merits (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account, specifically escape from Austria

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant's core escape evidence not credible, the fear of harm speculative and unsupported by evidence of the madam's capacity to kill or to corrupt police, and that a reasonable and viable internal flight alternative existed in major Nigerian cities; accordingly the claimant failed to establish an objective risk of persecution or need for protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA and the claim was rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed (rejection of claim)