TA8-00873

TA8-00873

The claims are rejected because the decision maker found the claimant not credible due to implausible and inconsistent accounts (notably the 2003 incident and differences with US asylum statements), evidence of re‑availment by returning to Colombia, and a likely fabricated supporting document, and therefore the claimants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or that state protection would be inadequate.

Citation
TA8-00873
Parties
Claimant: Jamie XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Child (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (inland) to the Refugee Protection Division / Final Decision on Merits (rejection)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected
Legal Topics
Extortion, State Protection Adequacy, Credibility and Inconsistent Evidence, Re‑availment / Internal Re‑availment, Particular Social Group, Imputed Political Opinion, Prior Application Refused Elsewhere, Family‑based Claim
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Extortion State Protection Adequacy Credibility and Inconsistent Evidence Re‑availment / Internal Re‑availment Particular Social Group +3 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamie XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child (daughter)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Child (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (inland) to the Refugee Protection Division / Final Decision on Merits (rejection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have established a well‑founded fear of persecution or serious harm
  2. 2 Credibility of the claimant and consistency with prior US asylum statements
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Colombia was available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are rejected because the decision maker found the claimant not credible due to implausible and inconsistent accounts (notably the 2003 incident and differences with US asylum statements), evidence of re‑availment by returning to Colombia, and a likely fabricated supporting document, and therefore the claimants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution or that state protection would be inadequate.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims
  • Claims rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act