TB0-01024

TB0-01024

The panel rejected the claimants' refugee protection claims because it found them not credible, their alleged fear lacked objective foundation and nexus to a Convention ground, documentary evidence pointed to generalized criminal risk rather than targeted persecution by paramilitaries, and a viable internal flight alternative existed in Cartagena, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-01024
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX; Child: XXXXXXXX XXXXX; Child: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, Generalized Risk, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Evidentiary Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative Generalized Risk Nexus to Convention Grounds Evidentiary Corroboration

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXX XXXXX

Child

XXXXX XXXXX

Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are credible
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have an objectively well-founded fear of persecution by paramilitaries or criminals
  3. 3 Whether there is a nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claimants' refugee protection claims because it found them not credible, their alleged fear lacked objective foundation and nexus to a Convention ground, documentary evidence pointed to generalized criminal risk rather than targeted persecution by paramilitaries, and a viable internal flight alternative existed in Cartagena, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX and spouse XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of children XXXXXXXX XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXX