TA9-15378

TA9-15378

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; objective country evidence shows El Salvador has functioning institutions and is making serious efforts to address crime and corruption, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Citation
TA9-15378
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Convention Refugee Status, Risk of Torture, Burden of Proof, Family‑based Persecution, Gender‑based Violence, Children
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Persecution Convention Refugee Status Risk of Torture +4 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether state protection in El Salvador is available and adequate
  3. 3 Whether the claimants face a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or risk to life

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; objective country evidence shows El Salvador has functioning institutions and is making serious efforts to address crime and corruption, therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimants' refugee claims pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA