TA4-15215

TA4-15215

The claimants failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution and failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Sri Lanka because the threats were limited and uncorroborated, the family did not uniformly flee, there was delay and failure to seek local or first-country protection, and country evidence demonstrates Sri Lanka makes serious efforts to address violence against women; therefore the claims are rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA4-15215
Parties
Claimant: Principal claimant (name redacted); Claimant: Co-claimant (daughter, name redacted); Refugee Protection Officer: Richard Henderson
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Well Founded Fear, Particular Social Group, Delay in Seeking Protection, Failure to Seek Protection at First Opportunity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Gender Based Persecution State Protection Well Founded Fear Particular Social Group +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Principal claimant (name redacted)

Claimant

Co-claimant (daughter, name redacted)

Claimant

Richard Henderson

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' fear of persecution is well-founded

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution and failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection in Sri Lanka because the threats were limited and uncorroborated, the family did not uniformly flee, there was delay and failure to seek local or first-country protection, and country evidence demonstrates Sri Lanka makes serious efforts to address violence against women; therefore the claims are rejected under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

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