TA2-14630

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection for Saint Vincent because documentary evidence and her own testimony showed police intervention and available judicial remedies, and her stated unwillingness to pursue protection now was not a reasonable explanation; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation: TA2-14630
Parties: Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 6 January 2003
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing at Refugee Protection Division; Oral Negative Decision and Written Reasons
Outcome: Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics: State Protection, Domestic Violence, Particular Social Group, Credibility Assessment
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Persecution Administrative Law State Protection Domestic Violence Particular Social Group Credibility Assessment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing at Refugee Protection Division; Oral Negative Decision and Written Reasons

Legal Issues

1 Whether claimant is a Convention Refugee under section 96 IRPA
2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97 IRPA
3 Whether state protection in Saint Vincent is unavailable or ineffective

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

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

Orders

Refugee protection claim of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX rejected; negative decision affirmed