TB0-11791

TB0-11791

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Colombia can provide adequate state protection because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence nor a compelling explanation for failing to seek protection; documentary country evidence demonstrated adequate state protection; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-11791
Parties
Claimant (spouse): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (principal): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (minor Dependent): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claim rejected; Refugee Protection Division finds claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Credibility, Country Conditions, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Credibility Country Conditions +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (minor Dependent)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection exists in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Colombia can provide adequate state protection because he did not provide clear and convincing evidence nor a compelling explanation for failing to seek protection; documentary country evidence demonstrated adequate state protection; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; Refugee Protection Division finds claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the claimant, his spouse and their minor daughter; claims dismissed