VB2-03830

VB2-03830

The claims are rejected because the claimants failed to establish the subjective element of a well-founded fear — evidenced by unreasonable delay in leaving Colombia, failure to seek protection from Colombian authorities, and failure to claim asylum in the United States when they could have — and they did not rebut the presumption that Colombia could protect them with clear and convincing evidence; the threat was localized and an internal flight alternative existed, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
VB2-03830
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Subjective Fear, Delay in Departure, Failure to Seek Protection in Transit Country, Internal Flight Alternative
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Subjective Fear Delay in Departure +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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether claimants demonstrated subjective fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are rejected because the claimants failed to establish the subjective element of a well-founded fear — evidenced by unreasonable delay in leaving Colombia, failure to seek protection from Colombian authorities, and failure to claim asylum in the United States when they could have — and they did not rebut the presumption that Colombia could protect them with clear and convincing evidence; the threat was localized and an internal flight alternative existed, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed