TB6-00304

TB6-00304

The panel found the claimant not credible on her central allegations due to significant omissions and inconsistencies about the agents of persecution; having rejected those allegations, and alternatively finding a viable internal flight alternative in Karachi on the evidence and country documentation, the panel concluded the claimant did not meet the s.96 or s.97 IRPA thresholds and dismissed the claim.

Citation
TB6-00304
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97 / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, Religious Persecution, Blasphemy, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Gender Related Persecution Religious 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA S.96 and S.97 / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant
  2. 2 Internal flight alternative (IFA)
  3. 3 Persecution on Convention grounds (religion, gender)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant not credible on her central allegations due to significant omissions and inconsistencies about the agents of persecution; having rejected those allegations, and alternatively finding a viable internal flight alternative in Karachi on the evidence and country documentation, the panel concluded the claimant did not meet the s.96 or s.97 IRPA thresholds and dismissed the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA