TA5-06305

TA5-06305

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the balance of probabilities because credible documentary evidence showed available Bulgarian legal remedies and NGO support, the claimant delayed and re‑availed to Bulgaria, and made only one police report in twenty years; accordingly she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA5-06305
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX); Refugee Protection Officer: D. Rose; Panel Member: M. Freilich
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, State Protection, Delay and Re‑availment, Convention Against Torture, Article 97 Risk of Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Criminal Law Particular Social Group Domestic Violence State Protection +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Claimant

D. Rose

Refugee Protection Officer

M. Freilich

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant has rebutted presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Whether domestic violence establishes membership in a particular social group for refugee protection

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the balance of probabilities because credible documentary evidence showed available Bulgarian legal remedies and NGO support, the claimant delayed and re‑availed to Bulgaria, and made only one police report in twenty years; accordingly she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed