TB2-12694

TB2-12694

The claim is rejected because the decision-maker drew adverse credibility findings from material inconsistencies between the claimant's PIF and oral testimony and, on the balance of probabilities, found a viable internal flight alternative in Escuintla where the claimant and family previously lived without problems; those findings defeat establishment of a well‑founded fear of persecution and of a need for protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB2-12694
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Oral Hearing and Oral Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant not found to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Oral Hearing and Oral Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection or at risk under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's testimony and written evidence are credible

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the decision-maker drew adverse credibility findings from material inconsistencies between the claimant's PIF and oral testimony and, on the balance of probabilities, found a viable internal flight alternative in Escuintla where the claimant and family previously lived without problems; those findings defeat establishment of a well‑founded fear of persecution and of a need for protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant not found to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection