MA7-03287

The panel rejected the claim because material contradictions and omissions undermined the principal claimant's credibility and, on the merits, the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by providing clear and convincing evidence that state protection was unavailable or by exhausting reasonable domestic remedies; accordingly they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation: MA7-03287
Parties: Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX
Court: Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 1 April 2011
Procedural Posture: Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome: Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics: State Protection, Credibility, Gender Based Persecution, Sexual Assault, Threats
Source Language: English

Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights State Protection Credibility Gender Based Persecution Sexual Assault Threats

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 15 Party arguments 2

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX

Spouse

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Final Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

1 Credibility of the principal claimant
2 Whether state protection was available and exhausted
3 Whether claimant met burden to rebut presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.