MB1-06736

MB1-06736

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection because she lived in Saint Vincent for over two years after separation without further harm, did not pursue police protection, and the documentary record established adequate legal and institutional mechanisms (domestic violence law, protection orders, trafficking legislation and police measures); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
MB1-06736
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Decision Maker / Panel Chair: Anna Brychcy
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Adjudication and Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Trafficking in Persons, Protection Orders
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Domestic Violence Law Convention Refugee Determination State Protection Gender Based Persecution +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Anna Brychcy

Decision Maker / Panel Chair

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Adjudication and Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution by her ex-boyfriend
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is available and adequate
  3. 3 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection because she lived in Saint Vincent for over two years after separation without further harm, did not pursue police protection, and the documentary record established adequate legal and institutional mechanisms (domestic violence law, protection orders, trafficking legislation and police measures); therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim is dismissed
  • No protection granted under sections 96 or 97(1) of IRPA