TB3-05534

TB3-05534

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection because they did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Colombian authorities could not protect them and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection (they did not report the FARC threats to police); Colombia was found to be a functioning democracy with institutions and ongoing efforts against FARC, so the claims were rejected.

Citation
TB3-05534
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Male Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (child): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; principal claimant and dependants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss. 96 and 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Burden of Proof, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Protection State Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Burden of Proof Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Male Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (child)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Colombia was inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection because they did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Colombian authorities could not protect them and did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection (they did not report the FARC threats to police); Colombia was found to be a functioning democracy with institutions and ongoing efforts against FARC, so the claims were rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; principal claimant and dependants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss. 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Orders

  • Claims rejected