TA9-04076

TA9-04076

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants were found not credible, failed to produce central documentary evidence (farm ownership), exhibited unreasonable delay and failure to seek asylum in the USA, and there was no persuasive evidence that the FARC targeted them; therefore there is no subjective fear and no objectively well‑founded fear of persecution and they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b).

Citation
TA9-04076
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Credibility Assessment, Objective Well‑founded Fear, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country, Burden of Proof, Extortion (vacuna), Internal/state Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Credibility Assessment Objective Well‑founded Fear Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country Burden of Proof +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether claimants have subjective fear of persecution
  3. 3 Whether fear is objectively well‑founded in Colombia today

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants were found not credible, failed to produce central documentary evidence (farm ownership), exhibited unreasonable delay and failure to seek asylum in the USA, and there was no persuasive evidence that the FARC targeted them; therefore there is no subjective fear and no objectively well‑founded fear of persecution and they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1)(a),(b).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim of the US citizen claimant as not a Convention refugee and not in need of protection
  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the Colombian claimants; they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to IRPA ss.96 and 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b)