TB2-09288

TB2-09288

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to provide credible, probative evidence of a continuing targeted risk from the alleged agent after nine years, made material omissions and an unexplained near‑three‑year delay that undermined her subjective fear, and failed to discharge the burden to show Bali was not a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TB2-09288
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Interpreter: B. Juandi
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 97) / Adjudication Hearing — Negative Decision Rendered (oral Decision With Written Reasons)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility and Adverse Inferences, Delay in Making Claim, Gender Based Persecution, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Credibility and Adverse Inferences Delay in Making Claim Gender Based Persecution 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

B. Juandi

Interpreter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (ss.96 97) / Adjudication Hearing — Negative Decision Rendered (oral Decision With Written Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Credibility of claimant and adverse inferences from omissions and delay
  3. 3 Availability and reasonableness of an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Bali

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was rejected because the claimant failed to provide credible, probative evidence of a continuing targeted risk from the alleged agent after nine years, made material omissions and an unexplained near‑three‑year delay that undermined her subjective fear, and failed to discharge the burden to show Bali was not a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant found neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.