VA8-03737

VA8-03737

The claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on return and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities given the lack of ongoing threats, the non‑repetitive and non‑systematic nature of past harm, and evidence of police/community interventions; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
VA8-03737
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX CHEGE; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (oral Rendered 20 May 2010; Written Reasons 07 June 2010)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Forced Marriage, Persecution by Family Members, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection State Protection Gender Based Persecution +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX CHEGE

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (oral Rendered 20 May 2010; Written Reasons 07 June 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution as a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection from risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment
  3. 3 Whether state protection is available or the presumption of state protection is rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution on return and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities given the lack of ongoing threats, the non‑repetitive and non‑systematic nature of past harm, and evidence of police/community interventions; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim rejected
  • Original documents returned to claimant