VB0-03630

VB0-03630

Although the claimant established a nexus to a Convention ground (political opinion) through PTI activity and related incidents, the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative existed (Hyderabad, Lahore, or Karachi), that the agents of persecution were localized and unlikely to pursue him there, and that objective country evidence indicated FIRs and arrest warrants are not systematically enforceable countrywide; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Act.

Citation
VB0-03630
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Claim After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Political Opinion, Internal Flight Alternative, Arrest and Detention, Risk of Torture, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Political Opinion Internal Flight Alternative Arrest and Detention Risk of Torture 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Claim After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has nexus to a Convention ground (political opinion)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) within Pakistan is viable and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant established a nexus to a Convention ground (political opinion) through PTI activity and related incidents, the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative existed (Hyderabad, Lahore, or Karachi), that the agents of persecution were localized and unlikely to pursue him there, and that objective country evidence indicated FIRs and arrest warrants are not systematically enforceable countrywide; therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Act.

Court Disposition

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