TA8-16182

TA8-16182

The claimants failed to establish a nexus between the alleged threats and a Convention ground; the risk identified was generalized and not sufficiently personalized under s.97(1)(b)(ii); and the claimants did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Colombia with clear and convincing evidence. Credibility concerns further undermined the claims. Therefore the claims are rejected.

Citation
TA8-16182
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant (son): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (estranged Husband): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Division Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Generalized Risk, Credibility Assessment, Section 97 Analysis
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Generalized Risk Credibility Assessment +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant (son)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (estranged Husband)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Division Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between fear of persecution and a Convention ground (political opinion or particular social group)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a nexus between the alleged threats and a Convention ground; the risk identified was generalized and not sufficiently personalized under s.97(1)(b)(ii); and the claimants did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection in Colombia with clear and convincing evidence. Credibility concerns further undermined the claims. Therefore the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims (reasons dated October 14, 2011)