TA8-22226

TA8-22226

The claimant's failure to seek asylum or regularize status in the United States, combined with significant delays in protecting her daughter, material omissions and lack of corroborative evidence (notably absence of the alleged MIMDES 'guarantee' order), undermine credibility; documentary country evidence demonstrates Peru is making serious efforts and offers adequate state protection; the claimant failed to meet the burden to show a lack of state protection, therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and the refugee claims are rejected.

Citation
TA8-22226
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Both claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Credibility, Delay in Claiming, Failure to Claim Elsewhere, Child Refugee Claim, Corroboration of Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Administrative Law State Protection Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence +5 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (rpd) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Failure to claim protection in the United States
  2. 2 Delay in departure and delay in bringing daughter to safety
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony and documentary omissions

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's failure to seek asylum or regularize status in the United States, combined with significant delays in protecting her daughter, material omissions and lack of corroborative evidence (notably absence of the alleged MIMDES 'guarantee' order), undermine credibility; documentary country evidence demonstrates Peru is making serious efforts and offers adequate state protection; the claimant failed to meet the burden to show a lack of state protection, therefore there is no serious possibility of persecution and the refugee claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Both claims rejected