TB2-12587

TB2-12587

The claim was dismissed because, on balance of probabilities, the claimant's testimony was rendered not credible by material inconsistencies and fortuitous timing, documentary evidence and jurisprudence supported adverse inferences from her conduct (including travel and failure to seek protection abroad), and because a viable internal flight alternative existed in Lagos where she could safely relocate; consequently she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB2-12587
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (dependent): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded; Decision and Reasons Issued
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimant and dependent minor are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA sections 96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Subjective Fear, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, State Protection, Convention Against Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Subjective Fear Internal Flight Alternative Gender Related Persecution +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (dependent)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing Concluded; Decision and Reasons Issued

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 (including Article 1 CAT risk)
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant and weight of documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because, on balance of probabilities, the claimant's testimony was rendered not credible by material inconsistencies and fortuitous timing, documentary evidence and jurisprudence supported adverse inferences from her conduct (including travel and failure to seek protection abroad), and because a viable internal flight alternative existed in Lagos where she could safely relocate; consequently she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimant and dependent minor are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA sections 96 and 97(1).

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's refugee protection claim.
  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the minor claimant's refugee protection claim as dependent on the primary claimant.