TB7-21925

TB7-21925

The claim fails because, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant has a viable internal flight alternative in Bulawayo and did not establish a serious possibility of persecution there; credibility was undermined by lack of timely corroboration and by voluntary re‑availment of protection in late 2017, so removal would not expose her to a risk of persecution, torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment within the meaning of ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-21925
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claim for protection denied (not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection)
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Gender Based Persecution, Reavailment of Protection, Section 96, Section 97(1)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Gender Based Persecution Reavailment of Protection +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection
  2. 2 Whether claimant has a viable internal flight alternative in Bulawayo
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's evidence (soldier visit, suspicious cars, timing)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant has a viable internal flight alternative in Bulawayo and did not establish a serious possibility of persecution there; credibility was undermined by lack of timely corroboration and by voluntary re‑availment of protection in late 2017, so removal would not expose her to a risk of persecution, torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment within the meaning of ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim for protection denied (not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection)

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; no protection granted