TA9-22655

TA9-22655

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in the Slovak Republic because she did not seek police or other state protection and did not provide clear and convincing evidence of the state's inability or unwillingness to protect; country documentation indicated functioning institutions and non-systemic police corruption, therefore the claimant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a need for protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TA9-22655
Parties
Claimant (designated Representative): XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Domestic Violence, Ethnic Discrimination (roma), Country Conditions Assessment, Gender Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Assessment Domestic Violence Ethnic Discrimination (roma) +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (designated Representative)

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection exists in the Slovak Republic

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in the Slovak Republic because she did not seek police or other state protection and did not provide clear and convincing evidence of the state's inability or unwillingness to protect; country documentation indicated functioning institutions and non-systemic police corruption, therefore the claimant did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a need for protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claims of the claimant and her three minor children are rejected under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act