MA4-00048

MA4-00048

The panel found the claimant failed to rebut the presumption that the Bulgarian state could protect her, did not exhaust available domestic remedies, provided insufficient and uncorroborated evidence of state complicity, and the country documentation showed discrimination was localized and internal relocation was viable; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MA4-00048
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Michel Colin; Panel Member: Roger Houde; Counsel: Claimant's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Claim Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (hearing June 6, 2005; Decision July 27, 2005)
Outcome
Refugee claim denied; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Roma as Particular Social Group, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Sexual Abuse, Forced Prostitution, Credibility, Exhaustion of Local Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Race Discrimination Roma as Particular Social Group State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +4 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Michel Colin

Refugee Protection Officer

Roger Houde

Panel Member

Claimant's Counsel

Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Claim Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (hearing June 6, 2005; Decision July 27, 2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 (persecution for race/membership of Roma)
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97
  3. 3 Whether Bulgarian state protection was available and exhausted

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant failed to rebut the presumption that the Bulgarian state could protect her, did not exhaust available domestic remedies, provided insufficient and uncorroborated evidence of state complicity, and the country documentation showed discrimination was localized and internal relocation was viable; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim denied; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee claim is dismissed (refusal of protection)