TA9-08328

TA9-08328

The Board found the claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection because of credibility concerns and lack of clear and convincing evidence that the Czech state was unable or unwilling to protect them; therefore the claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-08328
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse/co Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Dependent Minor: XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97(1)) / Board Hearing and Decision Reasons and Decision Issued
Outcome
All refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Credibility, Discrimination, Exhaustion of Remedies, Derivative Claim for Minor
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Persecution Credibility Discrimination Exhaustion of Remedies +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Spouse/co Claimant

XXXX

Dependent Minor

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97(1)) / Board Hearing and Decision Reasons and Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimants and omissions in Personal Information Form
  2. 2 Whether discrimination against Roma amounted to persecution
  3. 3 Whether state protection in the Czech Republic was available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The Board found the claimants did not rebut the presumption of state protection because of credibility concerns and lack of clear and convincing evidence that the Czech state was unable or unwilling to protect them; therefore the claims fail under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

All refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed; no protection granted