MA6-07159

MA6-07159

The claim was dismissed because the tribunal concluded there was a viable internal flight alternative (claimant could safely relocate to XXXXX/Talcahuano where she previously lived without incident), the claimant failed to credibly prove inability to obtain state protection or continuing targeted risk, and there was no evidence of state involvement constituting a risk of torture; credibility issues further undermined the claim.

Citation
MA6-07159
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection PRD Claim Under IRPA / Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claim rejected — claimant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Protection Administrative Law Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence Internal Flight Alternative State Protection +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection PRD Claim Under IRPA / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a refugee under s.96 IRPA based on membership of particular social group (women victims of domestic violence)
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (relocation within Chile) exists and is reasonable
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces risk of torture by or with acquiescence of state actors under s.97 IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the tribunal concluded there was a viable internal flight alternative (claimant could safely relocate to XXXXX/Talcahuano where she previously lived without incident), the claimant failed to credibly prove inability to obtain state protection or continuing targeted risk, and there was no evidence of state involvement constituting a risk of torture; credibility issues further undermined the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected — claimant is neither a refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim under section 96 IRPA rejected
  • Claim under section 97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA rejected