MA9-00453

MA9-00453

The claims were dismissed because the Tribunal found fundamental credibility deficiencies and lack of corroboration, no established nexus to Convention grounds, failure to rebut the presumption of State protection, and availability of an internal flight alternative in Colombia, such that the claimants did not meet the required standard under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MA9-00453
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX; Spouse / Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed for all claimants; none found to be Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Section 97(1) Protection, Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Persecution, Political Opinion, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Delay and Reavailment, Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Section 97(1) Protection Credibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +5 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse / Co Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimants
  2. 2 Nexus to Convention grounds (political opinion and membership in a particular social group)
  3. 3 Whether State protection is available in Colombia and Bolivia

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were dismissed because the Tribunal found fundamental credibility deficiencies and lack of corroboration, no established nexus to Convention grounds, failure to rebut the presumption of State protection, and availability of an internal flight alternative in Colombia, such that the claimants did not meet the required standard under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed for all claimants; none found to be Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed for MA9-00453, MA9-00454 and MA9-00455
  • No protection granted under section 96 or section 97(1) IRPA for any claimant