TB1-08026

TB1-08026

The RPD found positive and contemporaneous country evidence (domestic violence legislation, protections such as protection orders, Women and Child Protection Units, shelters including in Walvis Bay) and the claimant's failure to test state protection meant she did not rebut the presumption that Namibian authorities in Walvis Bay would be reasonably forthcoming with serious efforts to protect her; an internal flight alternative in Walvis Bay is viable; consequently the claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution nor face a probable risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-08026
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (post Hearing)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Forced Marriage, Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Orders, Domestic Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Gender Based Violence Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Forced Marriage +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Walvis Bay) exists for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The RPD found positive and contemporaneous country evidence (domestic violence legislation, protections such as protection orders, Women and Child Protection Units, shelters including in Walvis Bay) and the claimant's failure to test state protection meant she did not rebut the presumption that Namibian authorities in Walvis Bay would be reasonably forthcoming with serious efforts to protect her; an internal flight alternative in Walvis Bay is viable; consequently the claimant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution nor face a probable risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment and is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.