VB0-04061

VB0-04061

Both claims were rejected. The associated claimant failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk of torture because there was no evidence he would be located and harmed in Ensenada and a reasonable IFA existed there (including child citizenship and potential naturalization). The principal claimant was found not credible due to material contradictions between her PIF and testimony and objective evidence showing she came from a non‑traditional, non‑controlling family; on that basis the Tribunal found no objective basis to conclude she faced a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Turkey under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.

Citation
VB0-04061
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Both claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Persecution, Honour Based Violence, Family Based Persecution, Risk of Torture, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Citizenship and Naturalization
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Persecution Honour Based Violence Family Based Persecution +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX

Associated Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether there are substantial grounds to believe removal would subject claimants to torture or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) is available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Both claims were rejected. The associated claimant failed to prove a well‑founded fear of persecution or risk of torture because there was no evidence he would be located and harmed in Ensenada and a reasonable IFA existed there (including child citizenship and potential naturalization). The principal claimant was found not credible due to material contradictions between her PIF and testimony and objective evidence showing she came from a non‑traditional, non‑controlling family; on that basis the Tribunal found no objective basis to conclude she faced a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Turkey under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

Both claims rejected: claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Associated claimant XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX: Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.
  • Principal claimant XXXXXXXXXXX: Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.