TB1-06332

TB1-06332

On the evidence the FARC is largely weakened in urban centres and targets specific profiles not applicable to these claimants, there is insufficient credible evidence that the FARC would locate or target them in Cali, state protection and security in urban areas is available, and it would not be unduly harsh for the claimants to relocate internally to Cali; therefore an IFA exists and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB1-06332
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the claimants
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Non State Actor Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Law Country Conditions Assessment Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Non State Actor Persecution

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (reasons and Decision Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative (IFA) to Cali exists and is reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the FARC is largely weakened in urban centres and targets specific profiles not applicable to these claimants, there is insufficient credible evidence that the FARC would locate or target them in Cali, state protection and security in urban areas is available, and it would not be unduly harsh for the claimants to relocate internally to Cali; therefore an IFA exists and the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of the claimants

Orders

  • Claims of the principal, secondary and minor claimants are rejected; no refugee protection or need for protection found under sections 96 or 97 IRPA