VA9-00886

VA9-00886

The claim is dismissed because the claimants failed to establish a nexus between the harm feared and a Convention ground, and they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence by not taking reasonable steps to seek and pursue available state protection (including the Witness Protection Program); accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
VA9-00886
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, State Protection, Witness Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Delay in Making Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Public International Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Definition State Protection Witness Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Associate Claimant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the claimants failed to establish a nexus between the harm feared and a Convention ground, and they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence by not taking reasonable steps to seek and pursue available state protection (including the Witness Protection Program); accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; refugee protection claim rejected