TA6-15734

TA6-15734

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claimants' testimony as not credible and unconnected to a Convention ground, found they failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection and did not exhaust remedies, and held the female claimant's medical condition is excluded by section 97(1)(b)(iv); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA6-15734
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Spouse: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing and Reasons
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
Nexus to Convention Ground, State Protection, Credibility and Delay, Medical Exception Under Section 97(1)(b)(iv), Particular Social Group
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Nexus to Convention Ground State Protection Credibility and Delay Medical Exception Under Section 97(1)(b)(iv) Particular Social Group

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX)

Claimant Spouse

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether delay in leaving rebuts credibility or indicates lack of risk
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available and claimant exhausted remedies

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the panel rejected the claimants' testimony as not credible and unconnected to a Convention ground, found they failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection and did not exhaust remedies, and held the female claimant's medical condition is excluded by section 97(1)(b)(iv); therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims dismissed