TB1-11342

TB1-11342

On the balance of probabilities there is an available and reasonable internal flight alternative in Karachi because the Taliban are not shown to be motivated or able to pursue the claimant there and it would not be unduly harsh for him to relocate, therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-11342
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Burden of Proof, Risk of Persecution, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Security/terrorism Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Burden of Proof +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists in Karachi
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution by the Taliban
  3. 3 Whether it would be unduly harsh or objectively unreasonable for the claimant to relocate internally

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities there is an available and reasonable internal flight alternative in Karachi because the Taliban are not shown to be motivated or able to pursue the claimant there and it would not be unduly harsh for him to relocate, therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) of IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim denied by Refugee Protection Division decision dated May 28, 2013