TB0-02137

TB0-02137

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Colombia because the principal claimant did not seek protection in the proper jurisdictions after the extortion incidents and presented insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish the state's inability or unwillingness to protect; documentary country evidence showed Colombia had functioning institutions and measures against extortion; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-02137
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX); Spouse / Designated Representative: XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Minor Child (claimant): XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX; Minor Child (us Citizen): XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (final Determination)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Extortion by Non State Armed Actors, Country Conditions, Risk of Torture and Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Status Extortion by Non State Armed Actors Country Conditions +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX)

Principal Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Spouse / Designated Representative

XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

Minor Child (claimant)

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Minor Child (us Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a danger of torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was available in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Colombia because the principal claimant did not seek protection in the proper jurisdictions after the extortion incidents and presented insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish the state's inability or unwillingness to protect; documentary country evidence showed Colombia had functioning institutions and measures against extortion; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the principal claimant, his spouse and their minor daughter.
  • Claim of minor child who is a US citizen rejected as there was no fear of return to the United States.