TB0-13167

TB0-13167

On the evidence the claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Namibian authorities in Walvis Bay would be reasonably forthcoming with serious efforts to protect them; therefore a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists in Walvis Bay and the claimants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution nor face probable risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment; claims are dismissed.

Citation
TB0-13167
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Associated Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Reasons and Decision (post Hearing)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims denied; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Gender Based Persecution, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Human Rights Law Family/domestic Violence Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Convention Refugee Status Gender Based Persecution Burden of Proof

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant

Minister (Citizenship and Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Reasons and Decision (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether Namibia state authorities in Walvis Bay would reasonably provide protection (IFA)
  3. 3 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Namibian authorities in Walvis Bay would be reasonably forthcoming with serious efforts to protect them; therefore a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists in Walvis Bay and the claimants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution nor face probable risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment; claims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims denied; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Decision denies the refugee protection claims (rejection of claims under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the IRPA)