TB1-19826

TB1-19826

The claimant's account was found not credible on material points, lacked corroboration (no police reports, medical evidence did not support rape), and did not rebut the presumption of state protection or show internal relocation would be ineffective; therefore she failed to establish a well‑founded fear of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB1-19826
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Orientation, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Relocation Alternative
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Gender Based Persecution Sexual Orientation Credibility Assessment +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the claimant faces persecution on the basis of sexual orientation as a member of a particular social group
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's evidence is credible and corroborated

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's account was found not credible on material points, lacked corroboration (no police reports, medical evidence did not support rape), and did not rebut the presumption of state protection or show internal relocation would be ineffective; therefore she failed to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and the claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed by Refugee Protection Division; no protection granted