MB7-06944
The claimant's testimony was found not credible and she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection given objective evidence (continued travel to and returns to Burundi, documented state protection and privileges for her husband, and availability of bodyguards); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
- Citation
- MB7-06944
- Parties
- Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
- Court
- Refugee Protection Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 April 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection (irpa) / Final Decision (merits)
- Outcome
- Claim for refugee protection rejected
- Legal Topics
- Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Nexus to Convention Grounds
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX
Claimant
Minister
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Final Decision (merits)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
- 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
- 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible
Ratio Decidendi
The claimant's testimony was found not credible and she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection given objective evidence (continued travel to and returns to Burundi, documented state protection and privileges for her husband, and availability of bodyguards); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Court Disposition
Claim for refugee protection rejected
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment