TA9-20393

TA9-20393

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants failed to establish a fear of persecution for a Convention ground or that state protection in Albania (for the principal claimant) or the USA (for the minors) would be ineffective; the principal claimant's case rested on speculation and lacked objective corroborative evidence, and country documentation indicated Albania has measures to protect women and combat trafficking, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA9-20393
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Merits Hearing Decision
Outcome
claims rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection Assessment, Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment, Country Evidence Evaluation, Speculative Claims Vs Objective Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Trafficking Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Assessment Risk of Torture/cruel Treatment +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Merits Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection is available in Albania and the United States

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel found the claimants failed to establish a fear of persecution for a Convention ground or that state protection in Albania (for the principal claimant) or the USA (for the minors) would be ineffective; the principal claimant's case rested on speculation and lacked objective corroborative evidence, and country documentation indicated Albania has measures to protect women and combat trafficking, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act