MA6-00555

MA6-00555

On the balance of probabilities the claimant has not demonstrated that return to Saint Vincent would place her life at risk or expose her to cruel and unusual treatment because available documentary evidence and the panel's knowledge show a functioning child welfare authority and juvenile court able to place and supervise children, and there is no evidence of active targeting or specific danger to the claimant.

Citation
MA6-00555
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Alain Joffe; Designated Representative: Mrs. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker: Joel Moss; Refugee Protection Officer: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim for protection refused
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Abandonment of Child, Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Child Welfare Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Abandonment of Child Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Alain Joffe

Claimant's Counsel

Mrs. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Joel Moss

Decision Maker

N/A

Refugee Protection Officer

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant faces risk to life if returned
  2. 2 Whether claimant faces risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment
  3. 3 Adequacy of state child welfare protection in Saint Vincent

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimant has not demonstrated that return to Saint Vincent would place her life at risk or expose her to cruel and unusual treatment because available documentary evidence and the panel's knowledge show a functioning child welfare authority and juvenile court able to place and supervise children, and there is no evidence of active targeting or specific danger to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim for protection refused

Orders

  • Claim for protection refused