CA5-00302

CA5-00302

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and, on the evidence, has a viable internal flight alternative in Istanbul where she would not face a serious possibility of persecution; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
CA5-00302
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Joseph Farkas; Refugee Protection Officer: NOT ATTENDING; Designated Representative: NIL; Minister's Counsel: NIL; Panel: Gordon McKenzie
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee/need for Protection) / 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, State Protection, Forced/arranged Marriage, Honour Killings, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Psychological Harm
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Persecution Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Forced/arranged Marriage Honour Killings +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Joseph Farkas

Claimant's Counsel

NOT ATTENDING

Refugee Protection Officer

NIL

Designated Representative

NIL

Minister's Counsel

Gordon McKenzie

Panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee/need for Protection) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's fear is for a Convention ground (membership in a particular social group — women)

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and, on the evidence, has a viable internal flight alternative in Istanbul where she would not face a serious possibility of persecution; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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