VB0-03136

VB0-03136

Although the principal claimant's prior threats were accepted as credible, the evidence did not establish that the Taliban had the means or demonstrable willingness to track and persecute the claimants in Islamabad, and relocation there would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB0-03136
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision (oral Rendered April 18, 2012; Written Reasons April 25, 2012)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under the Act.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Credibility, Country Conditions, Gender Related Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Persecution Risk to Life Cruel and Unusual Treatment +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision (oral Rendered April 18, 2012; Written Reasons April 25, 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b)
  3. 3 Availability and reasonableness of an internal flight alternative to Islamabad

Ratio Decidendi

Although the principal claimant's prior threats were accepted as credible, the evidence did not establish that the Taliban had the means or demonstrable willingness to track and persecute the claimants in Islamabad, and relocation there would not be unreasonable in all the circumstances; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under the Act.