TA9-09389

TA9-09389

The claimants' refugee claim was rejected because the Tribunal found credibility problems and material omissions, insufficient objective corroboration of serious physical assaults, an unexplained delay in departure, and that the Czech Republic offers adequate state protection under existing laws and institutions; accordingly the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities and did not establish persecution under s.96 or need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-09389
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Nephew / Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Reasons/decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Persecution, Credibility, Delay in Departure, Roma Discrimination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee State Protection Persecution Credibility Delay in Departure +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Nephew / Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Reasons/decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in the Czech Republic is inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' refugee claim was rejected because the Tribunal found credibility problems and material omissions, insufficient objective corroboration of serious physical assaults, an unexplained delay in departure, and that the Czech Republic offers adequate state protection under existing laws and institutions; accordingly the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities and did not establish persecution under s.96 or need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of both claimants dismissed