MB0-02488

MB0-02488

The claimants failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment because the alleged persecutor has been appropriately punished and institutionalized, there is no recent targeted conduct against the claimants, objective country evidence indicates available state protection, and the claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; therefore their claims are rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MB0-02488
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence, Gender Related Persecution, State Protection, Delay in Making a Claim, Mental Illness of Alleged Persecutor, Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Administrative Law Domestic Violence Gender Related Persecution State Protection +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants meet the definition of a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether state protection is available and effective in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  3. 3 Whether the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or, on the balance of probabilities, a risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment because the alleged persecutor has been appropriately punished and institutionalized, there is no recent targeted conduct against the claimants, objective country evidence indicates available state protection, and the claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; therefore their claims are rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX are rejected