TB6-09895

TB6-09895

The Panel found that Rostov-on-Don constituted a reasonable and available internal flight alternative where the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution; accordingly the claimants did not satisfy the tests under s.96 or ss.97(1) IRPA and their claims were rejected.

Citation
TB6-09895
Parties
Principal Claimant: Principal Claimant (XXXX XXXX); Secondary Claimant: Secondary Claimant (XXXX XXXX); Minor Claimants: Minor Claimants (XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX); Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Credibility, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination Credibility Country Conditions

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal Claimant (XXXX XXXX)

Principal Claimant

Secondary Claimant (XXXX XXXX)

Secondary Claimant

Minor Claimants (XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX)

Minor Claimants

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in an internal flight alternative within Russia
  2. 2 Whether Rostov-on-Don is a reasonable internal flight alternative for the claimants
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA or persons in need of protection under ss.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel found that Rostov-on-Don constituted a reasonable and available internal flight alternative where the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution; accordingly the claimants did not satisfy the tests under s.96 or ss.97(1) IRPA and their claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims rejected under s.96 and ss.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • No protection granted