TA9-13326

TA9-13326

The panel rejected the claims because it found the principal claimant's account not credible in material respects and, alternatively, concluded that adequate state protection and a viable internal flight alternative in metropolitan Bogota exist; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
TA9-13326
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection IRPA S.96/97 / Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Delay in Seeking Asylum, Nexus to Convention Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection IRPA S.96/97 / Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the principal claimant's account

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because it found the principal claimant's account not credible in material respects and, alternatively, concluded that adequate state protection and a viable internal flight alternative in metropolitan Bogota exist; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA ss.96 and 97(1).

Orders

  • Claims are rejected
  • No protection granted under ss.96 or 97(1) of the IRPA