TB3-03922

TB3-03922

The panel found the claimants' material allegations not credible on a balance of probabilities due to relevant omissions, implausibilities and unjustified delay; the principal claimant failed to rebut the presumption that relocation to Cumaná or Ciudad Guayana would avoid persecution because documentary evidence showed FARC activity is concentrated in provinces bordering Colombia and not in the proposed IFAs; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB3-03922
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Delay in Leaving, Convention Refugee Determination, Risk of Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Delay in Leaving Convention Refugee Determination +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimants due to omissions, inconsistencies and implausibilities
  2. 2 Existence and reasonableness of an internal flight alternative in Venezuela (Cumaná and Ciudad Guayana)
  3. 3 Failure to seek state protection and alleged police corruption

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants' material allegations not credible on a balance of probabilities due to relevant omissions, implausibilities and unjustified delay; the principal claimant failed to rebut the presumption that relocation to Cumaná or Ciudad Guayana would avoid persecution because documentary evidence showed FARC activity is concentrated in provinces bordering Colombia and not in the proposed IFAs; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed

Orders

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