TA9-20931

TA9-20931

The panel found on a balance of probabilities that the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment; a viable internal flight alternative exists in Cartagena and the claimant did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence, credibility deficiencies (notably a last‑minute change in wording of the threat) further undermined the claim; accordingly the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-20931
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution Credibility +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative (Cartagena) exists

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found on a balance of probabilities that the claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution or personal risk of torture, death or cruel and unusual treatment; a viable internal flight alternative exists in Cartagena and the claimant did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence, credibility deficiencies (notably a last‑minute change in wording of the threat) further undermined the claim; accordingly the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of the claimant, spouse and minor daughter are rejected