MA5-04294

MA5-04294

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Peru could protect them because they sought state protection only once from a single police force, did not exhaust other domestic remedies or authorities, did not claim asylum while in the United States, and the principal claimant lacked credibility on fundamental aspects; therefore there is no well-founded fear of persecution nor a serious risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Peru.

Citation
MA5-04294
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Myriam Harbec; Adjudicator: Me Guy Lebel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Convention Refugee Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing Concluded; Decision Issued
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Harassment, Employment, Sojourning, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Credibility, Third Country Claim, Family Claim, Peru
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Immigration Law State Protection Safe Third Country Harassment Employment Sojourning Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies +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

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Me Myriam Harbec

Claimant's Counsel

Me Guy Lebel

Adjudicator

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Convention Refugee Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Ss.96 and 97(1) / Hearing Concluded; Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants established a well-founded fear of persecution or risk of torture/cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Peru
  2. 2 Whether the claimants exhausted domestic remedies and rebutted the presumption that the Peruvian state can provide protection
  3. 3 Whether failure to seek protection in the United States (a signatory to the 1967 Protocol) undermines the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Peru could protect them because they sought state protection only once from a single police force, did not exhaust other domestic remedies or authorities, did not claim asylum while in the United States, and the principal claimant lacked credibility on fundamental aspects; therefore there is no well-founded fear of persecution nor a serious risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Peru.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected for MA5-04294, MA5-04295, MA5-04296, MA5-04297