MA9-01835

MA9-01835

The claimant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that relocation to Ibadan would expose him to a serious possibility of persecution; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA9-01835
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee under s.96 and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1).
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Political Opinion, Persecution, Niger Delta Violence, Denunciation, Non State Actors
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Convention Refugee Political Opinion Persecution +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (Ibadan, Oyo State) was reasonable and available

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that relocation to Ibadan would expose him to a serious possibility of persecution; therefore he is not a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claim dismissed