TB0-13130

TB0-13130

The claimant's inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence that she sought or exhausted effective state protection, together with documentary evidence of Namibian domestic violence laws and services, mean she failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on a balance of probabilities; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-13130
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee Determination, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Gender Based Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Human Rights State Protection Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Determination Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of the claimant's account of police complaints and events
  2. 2 Whether adequate state protection is available in Namibia
  3. 3 Whether the claimant exhausted domestic remedies in a democratic state

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence that she sought or exhausted effective state protection, together with documentary evidence of Namibian domestic violence laws and services, mean she failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection on a balance of probabilities; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee claim denied; no protection granted