MB8-02915

MB8-02915

The panel found that an internal flight alternative (Chancay) was available and not objectively unreasonable for the claimants, and that the mother's evidence failed to establish that the alleged persecutors would continue to seek her or her children if she left the industry; credibility concerns and absence of evidence of continued risk meant the claimants did not satisfy the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Citation
MB8-02915
Parties
Claimants (asylum Seekers, Minors): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative for the Minors: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Best Interests of the Child
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Child Welfare Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Best Interests of the Child

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimants (asylum Seekers, Minors)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative for the Minors

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) within Peru was available to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the claimants meet the definition of a Convention refugee
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that an internal flight alternative (Chancay) was available and not objectively unreasonable for the claimants, and that the mother's evidence failed to establish that the alleged persecutors would continue to seek her or her children if she left the industry; credibility concerns and absence of evidence of continued risk meant the claimants did not satisfy the definitions of Convention refugee or person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • No elements on the record trigger application of sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act