TB5-04730

TB5-04730

The claimant's evidence was found not credible and unreliable on key facts (intent to come to Canada, reporting and follow up with police, identity and conduct of alleged agents, and asserted distribution of photographs); the Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that viable IFAs exist in Dhaka, Chittagong and Jessore where the claimant could safely live and obtain state protection; because both prongs of the IFA test are satisfied the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear or need for protection and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB5-04730
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment State Protection

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee under section 96
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1)
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Bangladesh

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was found not credible and unreliable on key facts (intent to come to Canada, reporting and follow up with police, identity and conduct of alleged agents, and asserted distribution of photographs); the Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that viable IFAs exist in Dhaka, Chittagong and Jessore where the claimant could safely live and obtain state protection; because both prongs of the IFA test are satisfied the claimant failed to establish a well‑founded fear or need for protection and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected