TA9-03859

TA9-03859

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection; objective documentary evidence shows the Czech Republic has functioning institutions and has taken measures to protect Roma; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-03859
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Common Law Spouse: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Burden of Proof, Roma Discrimination, Country Condition Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law State Protection Convention Refugee Status Burden of Proof Roma Discrimination +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Common Law Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (immigration and Refugee Protection Act Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether state protection in the Czech Republic is adequate
  3. 3 Whether claimants took all reasonable steps to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection; objective documentary evidence shows the Czech Republic has functioning institutions and has taken measures to protect Roma; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA