TA5-06198

TA5-06198

The panel found that the presumption of available state protection for Nigeria was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; the police in this case acted appropriately given the information available, the claimant failed to provide essential identifying information and did not follow up with the police, and therefore state protection was available; accordingly the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and there was no demonstrated risk of torture.

Citation
TA5-06198
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XX XXXXX); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Political Opinion, Membership of a Particular Social Group, Convention Against Torture, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law State Protection Political Opinion Membership of a Particular Social Group Convention Against Torture +1 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XX XXXXX)

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether effective state protection was available in Nigeria
  2. 2 Whether claimant was persecuted on account of political opinion or ANPP membership
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces a danger of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that the presumption of available state protection for Nigeria was not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; the police in this case acted appropriately given the information available, the claimant failed to provide essential identifying information and did not follow up with the police, and therefore state protection was available; accordingly the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and there was no demonstrated risk of torture.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for refugee protection dismissed
  • Claimant is not a Convention refugee pursuant to applicable law