TB6-10801

TB6-10801

The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to meet the balance of probabilities; material inconsistencies, vagueness and embellishments destroyed credibility, the mother's alleged NGO employment was not proven, and the claimant's failure to seek protection in the United States demonstrated lack of subjective fear (asylum shopping), therefore no well‑founded fear of persecution was established.

Citation
TB6-10801
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not in need of protection
Legal Topics
Forced Marriage, Gender Based Persecution, Association With NGO, Asylum Shopping, Credibility Assessment, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country, Child and Women Refugee Guidelines, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Forced Marriage Gender Based Persecution Association With NGO Asylum Shopping Credibility Assessment +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faced forced marriage and related threats amounting to persecution
  2. 2 Whether claimant's mother worked for an NGO creating a risk by association
  3. 3 Whether claimant would be targeted for being perceived as "Westernized" after US travel

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the claimant failed to meet the balance of probabilities; material inconsistencies, vagueness and embellishments destroyed credibility, the mother's alleged NGO employment was not proven, and the claimant's failure to seek protection in the United States demonstrated lack of subjective fear (asylum shopping), therefore no well‑founded fear of persecution was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not in need of protection