TA3-24812

TA3-24812

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was found not credible due to material inconsistencies, implausible conduct, and lack of required corroborative medical evidence; on the evidence the panel concluded state protection and an internal flight alternative in Ghana were available, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA3-24812
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Peter Stolworthy; Decision Maker: Jiti Singh Grewal
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Determination / Decision Dated 4 October 2004
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Sexual Violence / Rape, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Production of Documents / Evidentiary Rules
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Criminal Law (sexual Assault) Administrative Law Human Rights Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Sexual Violence / Rape +4 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Peter Stolworthy

Refugee Protection Officer

Jiti Singh Grewal

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Determination / Decision Dated 4 October 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA or a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's allegations of rape, threats and flight are credible
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection is available in Ghana

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because the claimant's testimony was found not credible due to material inconsistencies, implausible conduct, and lack of required corroborative medical evidence; on the evidence the panel concluded state protection and an internal flight alternative in Ghana were available, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division dismisses the claim and refuses refugee protection