MB0-06216

MB0-06216

Panel rejected claims because there was no established nexus to a Convention ground and no evidence of state involvement for torture, and claimants failed to prove that no reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Colombia (notably Bogota, Guaviare or Santander) given insufficient evidence of the attackers' ability or intent to locate them countrywide and credibility inconsistencies; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MB0-06216
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Child (citizen of the United States): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility, Political Opinion, Threats and Guerrilla Violence, Relocation, Refusal of Earlier Asylum
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Political Opinion +3 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Child (citizen of the United States)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between alleged persecution and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

Panel rejected claims because there was no established nexus to a Convention ground and no evidence of state involvement for torture, and claimants failed to prove that no reasonable internal flight alternative existed in Colombia (notably Bogota, Guaviare or Santander) given insufficient evidence of the attackers' ability or intent to locate them countrywide and credibility inconsistencies; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the principal claimant, spouse and minor child are rejected
  • Claimants are not Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA