TA9-08895

TA9-08895

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that the Czech Republic can provide adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence; the police responded adequately to the claimant's reported incidents and objective country evidence shows state measures to protect Roma, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA9-08895
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Child: XXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Concluded; Decision Issued
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination, Roma Rights, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Discrimination Roma Rights +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Concluded; Decision Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the Czech Republic provides adequate state protection to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant took all reasonable steps to avail himself of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that the Czech Republic can provide adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence; the police responded adequately to the claimant's reported incidents and objective country evidence shows state measures to protect Roma, therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

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