TB3-03212

TB3-03212

The claimant's asserted fear was not objectively well‑founded and her credibility was undermined by unexplained delays, repeated returns to Namibia, travel abroad and failure to seek or test available state protection. Documentary evidence established functioning state institutions and available women and child protection services in Namibia. Because the claimant failed, on the balance of probabilities, to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection, she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB3-03212
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected — claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Credibility Findings, Persecution for Witchcraft Allegations, Re‑availment and Delay
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Credibility Findings Persecution for Witchcraft Allegations +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's asserted fear was not objectively well‑founded and her credibility was undermined by unexplained delays, repeated returns to Namibia, travel abroad and failure to seek or test available state protection. Documentary evidence established functioning state institutions and available women and child protection services in Namibia. Because the claimant failed, on the balance of probabilities, to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection, she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected — claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed by the Refugee Protection Division