TA5-06547

TA5-06547

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that the Government of the Philippines can provide adequate protection because documentary country evidence showed legislative and institutional measures addressing gender violence and the claimants did not make diligent efforts to access those protections; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA5-06547
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Dependent (minor): XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (Designated Representative); Refugee Protection Officer: Nil; Minister's Counsel: Nil
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (oral Decision November 3, 2005; Written Reasons November 16, 2005)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Convention Refugee Determination, Diligent Effort to Seek State Protection, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Administrative Law State Protection Domestic Violence Convention Refugee Determination Diligent Effort to Seek State Protection +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Dependent (minor)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (Designated Representative)

Designated Representative

Nil

Refugee Protection Officer

Nil

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (oral Decision November 3, 2005; Written Reasons November 16, 2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted the presumption that the Philippines can provide state protection
  2. 2 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that the Government of the Philippines can provide adequate protection because documentary country evidence showed legislative and institutional measures addressing gender violence and the claimants did not make diligent efforts to access those protections; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Oral decision rendered November 3, 2005; written reasons dated November 16, 2005