VA5-01685

VA5-01685

Although the claimants were found credible, the tribunal concluded they failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because they provided no clear and convincing evidence the Colombian state could not protect them, they did not seek police protection despite opportunities to do so, they lived in Colombia for two years after the incident without further face-to-face attacks, and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore they are not persons in need of protection and removal would not expose them to risk of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Citation
VA5-01685
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent (minister): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants not found to be persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Persecution, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Political Opinion, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Persecution State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Political Opinion +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Co Claimant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of imputed political opinion
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection was available or whether the claimants had an objective reason to refrain from seeking it
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative existed within Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimants were found credible, the tribunal concluded they failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because they provided no clear and convincing evidence the Colombian state could not protect them, they did not seek police protection despite opportunities to do so, they lived in Colombia for two years after the incident without further face-to-face attacks, and an internal flight alternative existed; therefore they are not persons in need of protection and removal would not expose them to risk of death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants not found to be persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed.
  • Claimants are not persons in need of protection; removal to Colombia would not subject them personally to a risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment or to torture.