TB5-04209

TB5-04209

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; objective documentary evidence demonstrated that Colombian authorities have operational and effective protection mechanisms and were taking steps in the claimants' cases, and the claimants fled before state measures could be fully tested, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
TB5-04209
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.96/s.97) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Need for Protection, Credibility, Identity
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Convention Refugee Status Need for Protection Credibility Identity

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

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Associate Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.96/s.97) / Hearing and Decision by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adequate state protection was available in Colombia to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Whether the claimants face a well‑founded fear of persecution by FARC

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence; objective documentary evidence demonstrated that Colombian authorities have operational and effective protection mechanisms and were taking steps in the claimants' cases, and the claimants fled before state measures could be fully tested, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected