TA9-01875

TA9-01875

Panel rejected the claim because the claimant's core allegations lacked credibility and corroboration, she failed to seek protection while resident in the UK, no nexus to Convention grounds was established, and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed; therefore there is not a serious possibility of persecution and she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-01875
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, Failure to Seek Protection in Another Country, Particular Social Group (spouse), Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Psychological Evidence, Chairperson's Gender Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Gender Related Persecution Torture and Cruel Treatment Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Credibility Failure to Seek Protection in Another Country Particular Social Group (spouse) +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Panel rejected the claim because the claimant's core allegations lacked credibility and corroboration, she failed to seek protection while resident in the UK, no nexus to Convention grounds was established, and a reasonable internal flight alternative existed; therefore there is not a serious possibility of persecution and she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Claim rejected