VB7-01041

VB7-01041

The claimant failed to discharge the burden to show that relocation to Ibadan or Port Harcourt would be unreasonable or pose a serious risk; credibility issues (delay and omissions) further undermine his subjective fear; objective evidence and the claimant's own profile establish that relocation is feasible; therefore he is not a Convention refugee and not in need of protection.

Citation
VB7-01041
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Convention Refugee Status, Sur Place, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Convention Refugee Status Sur Place Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (Ibadan or Port Harcourt) is reasonable and safe
  3. 3 Whether claimant has a sur place claim based on tattoos

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to discharge the burden to show that relocation to Ibadan or Port Harcourt would be unreasonable or pose a serious risk; credibility issues (delay and omissions) further undermine his subjective fear; objective evidence and the claimant's own profile establish that relocation is feasible; therefore he is not a Convention refugee and not in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Refugee claim rejected by RPD (Reasons and Decision dated July 16, 2018).