TB1-01507

TB1-01507

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence: an internal flight alternative exists in Walvis Bay where Namibian law and institutions (including shelters and police WCPU units) can be reasonably expected to provide serious protective efforts; accordingly the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TB1-01507
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and not to be a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Forced Marriage, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution by Family/community, Religion
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Family Law Forced Marriage Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution by Family/community Religion

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Hearing and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Walvis Bay

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence: an internal flight alternative exists in Walvis Bay where Namibian law and institutions (including shelters and police WCPU units) can be reasonably expected to provide serious protective efforts; accordingly the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and not to be a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.