TA4-07813

TA4-07813

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection and made adverse credibility inferences for omissions in his PIF; on the balance of probabilities a viable internal flight alternative existed in Lahore or Islamabad; therefore the fear of persecution was not well founded and the claim fails under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TA4-07813
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision on Claim by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Burden of Proof, Risk of Torture, Risk of Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision on Claim by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether state protection was unavailable or ineffective
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection and made adverse credibility inferences for omissions in his PIF; on the balance of probabilities a viable internal flight alternative existed in Lahore or Islamabad; therefore the fear of persecution was not well founded and the claim fails under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied; claimant not found to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 of the IRPA.
  • Decision dated October 14, 2005 by Refugee Protection Division