TA8-17718

TA8-17718

The claims are rejected because the claimants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment: their failure to seek asylum in the USA undermines their subjective fear; an internal flight alternative exists in Quito; and state protection in Ecuador is adequate on the evidence. The minor claimant also faces no credible risk and would have state protection in the USA.

Citation
TA8-17718
Parties
Principal Claimant: Julio XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Failure to Claim Elsewhere, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative State Protection +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julio XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Failure to claim asylum in the United States and adverse inference on subjective fear
  2. 2 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) exists (Quito)
  3. 3 Adequacy of state protection in Ecuador

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are rejected because the claimants failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment: their failure to seek asylum in the USA undermines their subjective fear; an internal flight alternative exists in Quito; and state protection in Ecuador is adequate on the evidence. The minor claimant also faces no credible risk and would have state protection in the USA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.