TA1-07908

TA1-07908

The claimant's evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard to rebut the presumption that Uruguay could provide state protection; documentary evidence demonstrated institutional mechanisms and prosecutions and the claimant could have sought domestic remedies, therefore the refugee claim is rejected.

Citation
TA1-07908
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: M. McCarty
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing (hearing 27 May 2004; Decision 10 June 2004)
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Police Corruption, Persecution, Burden of Proof, Country Conditions, Surrogate Protection
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Criminal Law Administrative Law State Protection Police Corruption Persecution +3 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

M. McCarty

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing (hearing 27 May 2004; Decision 10 June 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant faces persecution by state or non-state actors
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Uruguay was available and effective
  3. 3 Whether police corruption amounted to persecution or rendered state protection unavailable

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard to rebut the presumption that Uruguay could provide state protection; documentary evidence demonstrated institutional mechanisms and prosecutions and the claimant could have sought domestic remedies, therefore the refugee claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected