TA6-14105

TA6-14105

Panel rejected claims based on an adverse credibility finding (contradictions, unreasonable delays, re-availment evidence, disposal of U.S. hearing transcripts) and, alternatively, found a viable internal flight alternative in Bogota; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA6-14105
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent Claimant (son) Withdrew Claim: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Hearing and Decision (determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Re Availment, Extortion, Political Opinion, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Human Rights Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Re Availment +3 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant (daughter)

XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent Claimant (son) Withdrew Claim

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / RPD Hearing and Decision (determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative in Bogota

Ratio Decidendi

Panel rejected claims based on an adverse credibility finding (contradictions, unreasonable delays, re-availment evidence, disposal of U.S. hearing transcripts) and, alternatively, found a viable internal flight alternative in Bogota; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 and are not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA