TB0-00574

TB0-00574

The Board found the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence because they did not file police complaints, did not provide adequate corroborative medical or psychological evidence, and did not pursue available complaint mechanisms; the harm proven amounted to discrimination and harassment but not persecution or a risk to life under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA; therefore the claims were rejected.

Citation
TB0-00574
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Spouse/claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Daughter/claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RPD Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
All refugee protection claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution, Discrimination, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law State Protection Persecution Discrimination Credibility +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Spouse/claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Daughter/claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RPD Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant and corroborative evidence
  2. 2 Whether discriminatory acts amount to persecution
  3. 3 Availability and adequacy of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Board found the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence because they did not file police complaints, did not provide adequate corroborative medical or psychological evidence, and did not pursue available complaint mechanisms; the harm proven amounted to discrimination and harassment but not persecution or a risk to life under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA; therefore the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

All refugee protection claims rejected

Orders

  • All claims are rejected.
  • Decision dated March 21, 2012 by Roslyn Ahara.