TB0-06052

TB0-06052

The claim is rejected because the Panel made adverse credibility findings based on inconsistencies and embellishments, the claimant failed to take reasonable steps to seek state protection, Venezuela provides adequate state protection in general and a viable internal flight alternative (Caracas) exists; claimant therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture/cruel treatment on return.

Citation
TB0-06052
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Canada (Minister)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Sexual Orientation, HIV Status, Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Sexual Orientation HIV Status +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Canada (Minister)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is credible and reliable
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Venezuela is adequate
  3. 3 Whether claimant exhausted available state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the Panel made adverse credibility findings based on inconsistencies and embellishments, the claimant failed to take reasonable steps to seek state protection, Venezuela provides adequate state protection in general and a viable internal flight alternative (Caracas) exists; claimant therefore failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture/cruel treatment on return.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; refugee protection refused