AA3-00072

AA3-00072

The claimant failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that state protection in Costa Rica would be unavailable because he did not pursue available remedies and the jurisprudential guideline TA2-14980 applied; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
AA3-00072
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Ghislaine Mac Lellan; Refugee Protection Officer: Josée Besner; Panel Member: William M. Davis
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (full Hearing)
Outcome
Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee; not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Burden of Proof, Jurisprudential Guidelines, Adjournment Request, Failure to Exhaust Local Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Burden of Proof Jurisprudential Guidelines Adjournment Request Failure to Exhaust Local Remedies

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Ghislaine Mac Lellan

Claimant's Counsel

Josée Besner

Refugee Protection Officer

William M. Davis

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection / Hearing and Decision (full Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether effective state protection was available in Costa Rica
  2. 2 Whether claimant had an obligation to seek local remedies before claiming refugee protection
  3. 3 Applicability of RPD jurisprudential guideline TA2-14980

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that state protection in Costa Rica would be unavailable because he did not pursue available remedies and the jurisprudential guideline TA2-14980 applied; therefore he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee; not a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim dismissed