TB0-04503

TB0-04503

Panel rejected claims because claimants lacked credibility and subjective fear (including unreasonable failure to seek protection in the US), did not rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and a realistic internal flight alternative (Lima) existed, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB0-04503
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Threats by Non State Actors (shining Path), Failure to Claim Elsewhere, Sojourning, Subjective Fear, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Credibility, Peru
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Extortion Threats by Non State Actors (shining Path) Failure to Claim Elsewhere Sojourning Subjective Fear +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 failure to claim refugee protection in the United States
  2. 2 credibility of claimants' testimony and documentary evidence
  3. 3 availability and reasonableness of internal flight alternative (Lima)

Ratio Decidendi

Panel rejected claims because claimants lacked credibility and subjective fear (including unreasonable failure to seek protection in the US), did not rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, and a realistic internal flight alternative (Lima) existed, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed (negative decision)