TB2-14734

TB2-14734

The claimants' credibility problems and lack of reliable, non‑speculative evidence that the agents of harm could locate and persecute them in Guatemala City establish that a viable internal flight alternative exists; consequently neither claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under ss.96–97 IRPA and their claims are rejected.

Citation
TB2-14734
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing and Reasons
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Status, Gender Based Persecution, Compelling Reasons, Criminality and Exclusion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Status Gender Based Persecution +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Guatemala City) exists
  3. 3 Credibility and evidentiary weight of claimants' accounts

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' credibility problems and lack of reliable, non‑speculative evidence that the agents of harm could locate and persecute them in Guatemala City establish that a viable internal flight alternative exists; consequently neither claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection under ss.96–97 IRPA and their claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed