TB1-02058

TB1-02058

The claimant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies and insufficient corroborative documentation; objective evidence shows Namibia has functioning laws, police WCPU units, shelters and support services and the claimant failed to demonstrate clear and convincing lack of state protection or lack of a reasonable internal flight alternative in Walvis Bay or Rundu; accordingly the claim fails under both section 96 and section 97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TB1-02058
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision After Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Gender Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Violence State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision After Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection exists in Namibia
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies and insufficient corroborative documentation; objective evidence shows Namibia has functioning laws, police WCPU units, shelters and support services and the claimant failed to demonstrate clear and convincing lack of state protection or lack of a reasonable internal flight alternative in Walvis Bay or Rundu; accordingly the claim fails under both section 96 and section 97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of IRPA.