TB1-08638

TB1-08638

The claims are rejected because the alleged threats stem from private criminal conduct without nexus to a Convention ground, the claimants' testimony and corroboration were not credible, adequate state protection or a reasonable internal flight alternative in Astana was available, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a substantial danger of torture under s.97(1).

Citation
TB1-08638
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (rpd)
Outcome
Claim rejected pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Corroboration, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Corroboration Gender Related Persecution

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (rpd)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threats from a private actor (brother) amount to persecution linked to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether claimants met the burden of proof and were credible
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was unavailable

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are rejected because the alleged threats stem from private criminal conduct without nexus to a Convention ground, the claimants' testimony and corroboration were not credible, adequate state protection or a reasonable internal flight alternative in Astana was available, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a substantial danger of torture under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Claims of the four named claimants are rejected pursuant to section 96 and section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act