TB4-05604

TB4-05604

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection: objective documentary evidence shows Ukraine and its police maintained effective control and provided avenues for investigation in Kiev, and the claimants did not present clear and convincing evidence of systemic inability or unwillingness to protect nor did they take reasonable steps to enable police protection; therefore the claims under s.96 and s.97(1) fail.

Citation
TB4-05604
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Other Claimant (spouse): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant (daughter): XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.96 and S.97(1)) / Final Decision on Merits (hearing August 14, 2014; Decision September 9, 2014)
Outcome
Claims dismissed: claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1); claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Religious Persecution, Convention Refugee Determination, Burden of Proof, Credibility and Evidentiary Requirements
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Religious Persecution Convention Refugee Determination Burden of Proof Credibility and Evidentiary Requirements

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Other Claimant (spouse)

XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant (daughter)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (s.96 and S.97(1)) / Final Decision on Merits (hearing August 14, 2014; Decision September 9, 2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection in Ukraine (Kiev)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection: objective documentary evidence shows Ukraine and its police maintained effective control and provided avenues for investigation in Kiev, and the claimants did not present clear and convincing evidence of systemic inability or unwillingness to protect nor did they take reasonable steps to enable police protection; therefore the claims under s.96 and s.97(1) fail.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed: claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1); claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants' refugee protection claims are rejected; no protection granted