TB7-02003

TB7-02003

Panel found claimant unreliable on core allegations (contradictions, omissions, implausible conduct such as returning from the UK despite alleged threats, and inconsistent supporting statements); threats were localized and time‑limited during shrine construction; claimant's professional profile did not establish a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB7-02003
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision and Reasons Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; refugee protection denied
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Sur Place Claim, Convention Refugee Determination, Persecution Risk, Country Conditions Evidence
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) Sur Place Claim Convention Refugee Determination Persecution Risk +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Decision and Reasons Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant's testimony and supporting statements
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces persecution on a Convention ground if returned to Pakistan
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative exists in Pakistan (Islamabad or Karachi)

Ratio Decidendi

Panel found claimant unreliable on core allegations (contradictions, omissions, implausible conduct such as returning from the UK despite alleged threats, and inconsistent supporting statements); threats were localized and time‑limited during shrine construction; claimant's professional profile did not establish a personalized risk; viable internal flight alternatives (Islamabad, Karachi) existed and relocation would not be unreasonable; therefore on a balance of probabilities claimant would not face persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment upon return — claim rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; refugee protection denied