TB8-03062

TB8-03062

On the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to demonstrate that State protection in Colombia was unavailable or inadequate with respect to their circumstances and that no reasonable internal flight alternative existed; consequently they do not qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 nor as persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB8-03062
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel: Abdalla E Abosharia; Minister's Counsel: N/A; Interpreter: G. Escalante; Decision Maker: E. Metz
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Decision (bench Decision)
Outcome
Claims dismissed; negative determination — claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Safe Third Country, Written Submissions (rule 10(7))
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Procedural Fairness Credibility Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Abdalla E Abosharia

Counsel

N/A

Minister's Counsel

G. Escalante

Interpreter

E. Metz

Decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Decision (bench Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants meet the definition of a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether effective State protection was available in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to demonstrate that State protection in Colombia was unavailable or inadequate with respect to their circumstances and that no reasonable internal flight alternative existed; consequently they do not qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 nor as persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; negative determination — claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims denied