TB1-11008

TB1-11008

Claim dismissed because the claimant's evidence contained material inconsistencies and questionable corroboration, she failed to rebut the availability of state protection in Namibia and a viable internal flight alternative exists; therefore she did not prove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor meet...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TB1-11008
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Immigration (Respondent); Decision Maker: Anthony P. Da Silva
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Merits Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1).
Legal Topics
Forced Marriage, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Determination, Protection Under S.97 IRPA
Source Language
english
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Forced Marriage State Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Determination +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister of Immigration (Respondent)

Respondent

Anthony P. Da Silva

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Merits Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1)(a) and (b) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant's account is credible

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because the claimant's evidence contained material inconsistencies and questionable corroboration, she failed to rebut the availability of state protection in Namibia and a viable internal flight alternative exists; therefore she did not prove a serious possibility of persecution under s.96 nor meet the s.97(1) threshold.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection is denied; no protection granted