TA9-12467

TA9-12467

The panel rejected the claims because the PC's evidence contained material inconsistencies and omissions, corroboration was lacking for key allegations, and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in the Czech Republic on the balance of probabilities; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-12467
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXX XXXX; Claimant (child): XXXX XXXX; Claimant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent (spouse): XXXX XXXX; Respondent (government): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Domestic Violence, Roma Discrimination, Post Hearing Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Credibility State Protection Domestic Violence Roma Discrimination +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXX XXXX

Claimant (child)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (child)

XXXX XXXX

Respondent (spouse)

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (government)

XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Assessment of claimant credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the PC's evidence contained material inconsistencies and omissions, corroboration was lacking for key allegations, and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in the Czech Republic on the balance of probabilities; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX and her six children; files closed