TB6-17398

TB6-17398

The panel found that Cali constitutes a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative on the balance of probabilities because the claimants had complied with the perpetrators' demand to leave, there was no evidence of motivation for the perpetrators to pursue them to Cali, objective evidence did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a probable risk to life/torture/cruel treatment in Cali, and relocation would not be objectively unreasonable given the mother's qualifications and available supports; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB6-17398
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision — Reasons for Decision (de Novo)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Convention Refugee Status, Risk Assessment, Credibility Findings, Internally Displaced Persons
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Internal Flight Alternative Convention Refugee Status Risk Assessment Credibility Findings Internally Displaced Persons

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

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (minor)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision — Reasons for Decision (de Novo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimants in Cali
  2. 2 Whether the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution on return to Colombia
  3. 3 Whether the claimants would face a risk to life, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment on return

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found that Cali constitutes a viable and reasonable internal flight alternative on the balance of probabilities because the claimants had complied with the perpetrators' demand to leave, there was no evidence of motivation for the perpetrators to pursue them to Cali, objective evidence did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a probable risk to life/torture/cruel treatment in Cali, and relocation would not be objectively unreasonable given the mother's qualifications and available supports; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Orders

  • The Refugee protection claims TB6-11912, TB6-11920, TB6-11921 are rejected.