TB4-00837

TB4-00837

The panel found the principal claimant generally not credible and many supporting documents unreliable; the country evidence did not establish that Ismailis face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Pakistan; even if risk existed in Karachi, viable and reasonable internal flight alternatives existed in Hyderabad or Islamabad; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB4-00837
Parties
Claimant — Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant — Minor: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Redetermination Following Federal Court Quashing; Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claimants' refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Evidentiary Weight of Documentary Evidence, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Evidentiary Weight of Documentary Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant — Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant — Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Redetermination Following Federal Court Quashing; Hearing and Decision

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 principal claimant and supporting witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the principal claimant generally not credible and many supporting documents unreliable; the country evidence did not establish that Ismailis face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Pakistan; even if risk existed in Karachi, viable and reasonable internal flight alternatives existed in Hyderabad or Islamabad; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claimants' refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims rejected