TB0-17926

TB0-17926

On the evidence the claimant was targeted as a victim of crime/extortion rather than for a Convention ground, he failed to demonstrate that perpetrators attributed a political opinion to him, he did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence (police took reports and initiated investigations), and a viable internal flight alternative exists in Cali; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Citation
TB0-17926
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX); Spouse: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Forced Recruitment, Union Refusal, Threats and Extortion, Guerrilla Groups (farc), State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Nexus to Convention Ground, Credibility and Evidentiary Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Forced Recruitment Union Refusal Threats and Extortion Guerrilla Groups (farc) +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Colombia is adequate and was rebutted with clear and convincing evidence
  3. 3 Whether claimant exhausted or reasonably could exhaust state protection

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the claimant was targeted as a victim of crime/extortion rather than for a Convention ground, he failed to demonstrate that perpetrators attributed a political opinion to him, he did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence (police took reports and initiated investigations), and a viable internal flight alternative exists in Cali; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the claimant, his wife and their minor child
  • Claims of the spouse and minor child fail because they rely entirely on the evidence of the claimant