TA5-15596

TA5-15596

The claimant's core allegations were speculative and not credible, she failed to establish a personal profile or political activity that would expose her to persecution in Zimbabwe, and because she had access to protection in the United States and did not seek it there the panel drew an adverse inference; on that basis the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
TA5-15596
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection Division, Particular Social Group, Family, Political Opposition, Visas, Students, Safe Third Country, Credibility, Political Participation, Female, Zimbabwe
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Division Particular Social Group Family Political Opposition Visas +6 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Respondent

Minister's Counsel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces persecution for membership of a particular social group or political opinion
  3. 3 Credibility and evidentiary sufficiency of claimant's allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's core allegations were speculative and not credible, she failed to establish a personal profile or political activity that would expose her to persecution in Zimbabwe, and because she had access to protection in the United States and did not seek it there the panel drew an adverse inference; on that basis the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

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