TA9-03889

TA9-03889

The panel rejected the claim because it found the principal claimant's account not credible in material respects and, alternatively, concluded on the balance of probabilities that effective state protection or a viable internal flight alternative exists in Bogota, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TA9-03889
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor Represented): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Refugee Protection Division Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Findings, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Gender Guidelines, Extortion by Non State Actors, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Findings Nexus to Convention Grounds +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor Represented)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Refugee Protection Division Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' account is credible and their fear well founded

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claim because it found the principal claimant's account not credible in material respects and, alternatively, concluded on the balance of probabilities that effective state protection or a viable internal flight alternative exists in Bogota, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Protection denied; claimants' refugee claims rejected