VB1-02579

VB1-02579

Objective country evidence established that Al‑Shabab presence is concentrated in central and southern Somalia while Somaliland (north) is comparatively secure and has functioning institutions; the claimant, despite subjective fears, could reasonably relocate to Somaliland where his minority clan is present and generally protected and he could transfer his skills; therefore an IFA exists and is reasonable and his claim fails under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.

Citation
VB1-02579
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Panel; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97 / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Country Conditions (somalia)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Country Conditions (somalia)

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

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Division Panel

Tribunal

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97 / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection (risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists and is reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Objective country evidence established that Al‑Shabab presence is concentrated in central and southern Somalia while Somaliland (north) is comparatively secure and has functioning institutions; the claimant, despite subjective fears, could reasonably relocate to Somaliland where his minority clan is present and generally protected and he could transfer his skills; therefore an IFA exists and is reasonable and his claim fails under ss.96 and 97 of the Act.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim dismissed under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act