TB1-04781

TB1-04781

The claimant has a genuine subjective fear but the Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that a reasonable and viable internal flight alternative existed in major Nigerian cities and it would not be unreasonable for him to relocate there; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and he does not meet the definitions in sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB1-04781
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Persecution, Religion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Persecution +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Claimant identity and nationality
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces persecution as member of particular social group (family/traditional community)
  3. 3 Whether claimant faces risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has a genuine subjective fear but the Panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that a reasonable and viable internal flight alternative existed in major Nigerian cities and it would not be unreasonable for him to relocate there; therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and he does not meet the definitions in sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA