MA5-00099

MA5-00099

Because country documentation and testimony establish that Saint‑Vincent is a democratic State that has made serious legislative, judicial and enforcement efforts to address sexual and domestic violence, and because the claimant made only limited attempts to seek help and failed to rebut the presumption of effective State protection, the panel found no serious possibility of persecution and no risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment; claim therefore fails under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA5-00099
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Styliani (Stacey) Markaki; Refugee Protection Officer: François Toupin
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual and Domestic Violence, Delay in Claiming Protection, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Gender Based Persecution Sexual and Domestic Violence Delay in Claiming Protection 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Styliani (Stacey) Markaki

Claimant's Counsel

François Toupin

Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97
  3. 3 Whether effective State protection exists in Saint-Vincent and the Grenadines

Ratio Decidendi

Because country documentation and testimony establish that Saint‑Vincent is a democratic State that has made serious legislative, judicial and enforcement efforts to address sexual and domestic violence, and because the claimant made only limited attempts to seek help and failed to rebut the presumption of effective State protection, the panel found no serious possibility of persecution and no risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment; claim therefore fails under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim is rejected; claimant is not found to be a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection