TA9-06313

TA9-06313

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that St. Lucia can protect its nationals with clear and convincing evidence; documentary and country evidence showed available domestic remedies (family court protection orders, police Domestic Violence Unit, Vulnerable Persons Team, support centres) and ongoing state efforts, therefore state protection was found adequate and the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-06313
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, Protection Orders, Delay in Claiming, Psychological Harm
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Family Law Gender Based Violence State Protection Particular Social Group Domestic Violence +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection pursuant to s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in St. Lucia

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that St. Lucia can protect its nationals with clear and convincing evidence; documentary and country evidence showed available domestic remedies (family court protection orders, police Domestic Violence Unit, Vulnerable Persons Team, support centres) and ongoing state efforts, therefore state protection was found adequate and the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division; claimant not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claim (Decision dated March 2, 2010)
  • No protection granted under ss.96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act