TB2-09927

TB2-09927

Claims dismissed because the Tribunal found the principal claimant not credible on material facts (including asserted bisexuality and relationship history) and concluded she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by providing clear and convincing evidence or by seeking protection from state authorities; the minor claimant also failed to make a claim against her other country of nationality (U.S.A.), therefore neither claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TB2-09927
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Country of Reference/dual Nationality
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility Assessment State Protection Gender Based Persecution Membership of a Particular Social Group +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 credibility of claimant's sexuality and testimony
  2. 2 whether state protection in country of nationality is available
  3. 3 whether minor claimant must claim against all countries of nationality (country of reference)

Ratio Decidendi

Claims dismissed because the Tribunal found the principal claimant not credible on material facts (including asserted bisexuality and relationship history) and concluded she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by providing clear and convincing evidence or by seeking protection from state authorities; the minor claimant also failed to make a claim against her other country of nationality (U.S.A.), therefore neither claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims rejected
  • Claimants found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act