VA6-02519

VA6-02519

The claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected because the Tribunal found on the evidence that Buenos Aires constitutes a viable internal flight alternative that is reasonably accessible and where claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment, and that the claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Argentine state authorities can provide adequate protection.

Citation
VA6-02519
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Racial Discrimination, Kidnapping/violent Crime, Gender Considerations, Children/derivative Claims
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Racial Discrimination Kidnapping/violent Crime +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants face persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists in Argentina (Buenos Aires)
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available in the internal flight alternative

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected because the Tribunal found on the evidence that Buenos Aires constitutes a viable internal flight alternative that is reasonably accessible and where claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment, and that the claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Argentine state authorities can provide adequate protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX are rejected.