TA5-01142

TA5-01142

The claim is rejected because a viable Internal Flight Alternative existed in another part of the Philippines and the claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or that he would be pursued there; credibility concerns and lack of reporting/corroboration further undermine the claim.

Citation
TA5-01142
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: Refugee Protection Division
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Refugee Protection Division Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Political Participation
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status State Protection Credibility Assessment Political Participation

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Division

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Refugee Protection Division Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists for the claimant in the Philippines
  2. 2 Whether the claimant meets the definition of a Convention refugee or is a person in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was available

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because a viable Internal Flight Alternative existed in another part of the Philippines and the claimant failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or that he would be pursued there; credibility concerns and lack of reporting/corroboration further undermine the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected