TB4-09214

TB4-09214

The panel rejected the claims because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimants' core allegations of FARC targeting were not credible or were embellished, corroborating evidence did not establish FARC or BACRIM involvement, police had acted and investigations/security advice were given, state protection was not rebutted, and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Cali or Armenia) was available; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB4-09214
Parties
Principal Claimant: Principal claimant (name redacted); Spouse: Wife (name redacted); Child Female Claimant: Female claimant (name redacted); Child: Daughter (name redacted)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Hearing and Final Decision With Reasons Issued
Outcome
Claims rejected — claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Safe Third Country Agreement (family Exception), Extortion, FARC and BACRIM Allegations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative (ifa) +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal claimant (name redacted)

Principal Claimant

Wife (name redacted)

Spouse

Female claimant (name redacted)

Child Female Claimant

Daughter (name redacted)

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Hearing and Final Decision With Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a forward‑looking risk of persecution from FARC or affiliated groups
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection is available in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because, on the balance of probabilities, the claimants' core allegations of FARC targeting were not credible or were embellished, corroborating evidence did not establish FARC or BACRIM involvement, police had acted and investigations/security advice were given, state protection was not rebutted, and a reasonable internal flight alternative (Cali or Armenia) was available; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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