TB2-06455

TB2-06455

The claimant's testimony and documentation were found not credible or not sufficiently corroborated; on the balance of probabilities she did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and a viable Internal Flight Alternative (e.g. St. Petersburg or other major cities) with available state protection exists; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TB2-06455
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's claim
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Family Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA (sections 96 and 97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of the claimant and weight of evidence
  2. 2 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee
  3. 3 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's testimony and documentation were found not credible or not sufficiently corroborated; on the balance of probabilities she did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and a viable Internal Flight Alternative (e.g. St. Petersburg or other major cities) with available state protection exists; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's claim

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's claim
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act