TB1-15958

TB1-15958

The claimant's credibility was undermined by implausible coincidences, omissions and inconsistent documentary evidence and, on the balance of probabilities, a viable internal flight alternative exists in Lagos, Abuja or Ilorin; therefore the claimant and dependent female claimant are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB1-15958
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Claimant (dependent): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant and dependent female claimant are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA sections 96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Particular Social Group, Family, Section 96, Section 97(1)
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Asylum Refugee Protection Internal Flight Alternative Human Rights Torture Credibility Particular Social Group Family +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Female Claimant (dependent)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA (risk of torture or cruel treatment)
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's credibility was undermined by implausible coincidences, omissions and inconsistent documentary evidence and, on the balance of probabilities, a viable internal flight alternative exists in Lagos, Abuja or Ilorin; therefore the claimant and dependent female claimant are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant and dependent female claimant are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA sections 96 and 97(1).