TA6-09590

TA6-09590

The tribunal found on the evidence, including a Spanish Consulate letter and claimant's employment and prior renewals, that the claimant had the right to live, work and return to Spain and thus enjoyed rights akin to nationality at the relevant time; the claimant voluntarily failed to preserve those rights and therefore is excluded from protection under Article 1E. Alternatively, the tribunal found the claimant failed to prove that state protection or an internal flight alternative (Bogota) would be inadequate, and accordingly the refugee claim is rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA6-09590
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent/minister: The Minister of Public Safety; Adjudicator/panel: Cliff Berry
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim With Minister Intervention for Exclusion Under Article 1 E / Decision Reasons and Decision (exclusion and Merits Alternative)
Outcome
Claimant excluded from protection under Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention; refugee claim rejected on merits under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 E of the 1951 Refugee Convention, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Burden of Proof in Refugee Proceedings, Refugee Status Determination, Sponsorship and Withdrawal
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law International Refugee Law Administrative Law Exclusion Under Article 1 E of the 1951 Refugee Convention State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Burden of Proof in Refugee Proceedings Refugee Status 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

The Minister of Public Safety

Respondent/minister

Cliff Berry

Adjudicator/panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim With Minister Intervention for Exclusion Under Article 1 E / Decision Reasons and Decision (exclusion and Merits Alternative)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant enjoyed rights akin to nationality in Spain at time of entry to Canada
  2. 2 Whether claimant is excluded from protection under Article 1E of the 1951 Convention
  3. 3 Whether the claimant can demonstrate on balance of probabilities that state protection in Bogota would be inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found on the evidence, including a Spanish Consulate letter and claimant's employment and prior renewals, that the claimant had the right to live, work and return to Spain and thus enjoyed rights akin to nationality at the relevant time; the claimant voluntarily failed to preserve those rights and therefore is excluded from protection under Article 1E. Alternatively, the tribunal found the claimant failed to prove that state protection or an internal flight alternative (Bogota) would be inadequate, and accordingly the refugee claim is rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claimant excluded from protection under Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention; refugee claim rejected on merits under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Orders

  • Claimant XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX is excluded from the protection of Canada pursuant to Article 1E of the 1951 Convention.
  • Refugee claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.