MA9-06293

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate State protection because the Botswana authorities acted on her complaints (warning and arrest), and the mere fact the accused was later released without explanatory evidence does not demonstrate state inability to protect; therefore international protection is not warranted under ss.96 and 97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation: MA9-06293
Parties: Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 15 July 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome: Claim rejected
Legal Topics: State Protection, Domestic Violence, Persecution, Credibility, Well Founded Fear
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Violence State Protection Domestic Violence Persecution Credibility Well Founded Fear

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Botswana
2 Whether State protection in Botswana is adequate in the claimant's particular circumstances
3 Whether the claimant meets the criteria under section 96 and section 97(1)(b) of the IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

Claim rejected under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; claim under section 97(1)(b) also rejected