TB3-03260

TB3-03260

Although the claimant's identity and testimony were accepted as generally credible, the objective risk element required for refugee status was not established: Mogadishu and Kismayo were found not to be under sustained al‑Shabaab control, the claimant would not face a personal risk beyond that of the general population, an internal flight alternative to his home city exists, and there was no evidence he was specifically targeted; therefore the claim under section 96 fails and, on a forward‑looking balance of probabilities, the claim under section 97 also fails.

Citation
TB3-03260
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Decision Following Hearing (final Determination)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection (section 97), Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection (section 97) Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Country Condition Evidence

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97) / Decision Following Hearing (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 (well‑founded fear of persecution)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 (risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment)
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) is available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimant's identity and testimony were accepted as generally credible, the objective risk element required for refugee status was not established: Mogadishu and Kismayo were found not to be under sustained al‑Shabaab control, the claimant would not face a personal risk beyond that of the general population, an internal flight alternative to his home city exists, and there was no evidence he was specifically targeted; therefore the claim under section 96 fails and, on a forward‑looking balance of probabilities, the claim under section 97 also fails.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claim dismissed on merits; negative decision dated August 21, 2014