TA9-07042

TA9-07042

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant's central narrative not credible and insufficiently corroborated (no police report, death certificates without cause, implausible conduct given his alleged role), determined an internal flight alternative within Nigeria was available, and concluded the claimant failed to show state protection was unavailable; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA9-07042
Parties
Claimant (asylum Claimant): XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (ss.96, 97(1)) / Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected — not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, State Protection, Persecution by Family Members, Victim of Criminality
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative +4 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant (asylum Claimant)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (ss.96, 97(1)) / Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's account of murders and persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the panel found the claimant's central narrative not credible and insufficiently corroborated (no police report, death certificates without cause, implausible conduct given his alleged role), determined an internal flight alternative within Nigeria was available, and concluded the claimant failed to show state protection was unavailable; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected — not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(a) or (b) IRPA.