TA9-15944

TA9-15944

The claimant's core allegations were found not credible and, on the documentary record, Colombia offers adequate state protection and a reasonable IFA in Medellin; because the claimant failed to establish a subjective and objectively well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment, the claim fails under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-15944
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing De Novo Following Judicial Review
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Forced Recruitment by Armed Group, Child Recruitment, Risk of Torture/cruel and Unusual Treatment, Failure to Seek Protection in Another Country, Visa/immigration Procedure
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Forced Recruitment by Armed Group Child Recruitment +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing De Novo Following Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the claimant prove he was approached and threatened by FARC?
  2. 2 Is the claimant's testimony credible and establishes subjective fear?
  3. 3 Is state protection in Colombia available and adequate?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's core allegations were found not credible and, on the documentary record, Colombia offers adequate state protection and a reasonable IFA in Medellin; because the claimant failed to establish a subjective and objectively well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment, the claim fails under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee claim dismissed
  • No protection or refugee status granted