TA8-12214

TA8-12214

The panel rejected the claims because on the balance of probabilities the claimants lacked subjective fear and there was no objective, credible evidence of targeted persecution by the FARC; failure to seek protection in the USA and fabricated/inconsistent evidence fatally undermined credibility, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Citation
TA8-12214
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (usa Citizen): XXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility, Safe Third Country, Failure to Seek Protection in Other Countries, Generalized Risk, Extortion, Guerrilla Warfare
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Safe Third Country +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (usa Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under sections 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because on the balance of probabilities the claimants lacked subjective fear and there was no objective, credible evidence of targeted persecution by the FARC; failure to seek protection in the USA and fabricated/inconsistent evidence fatally undermined credibility, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 97(1)(a) or 97(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX for refugee protection dated September 28, 2009
  • Claims of the USA‑citizen family members rejected as not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection