CA3-00671

CA3-00671

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because she did not seek higher police or defence assistance despite advice and available avenues; therefore no well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground. The minor's medical risk stems from Venezuela's inadequate health infrastructure, which is expressly excluded from protection under s.97(1)(b)(iv); therefore both claims fail.

Citation
CA3-00671
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected. Principal claimant and minor claimant are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Risk to Life, Medical Treatment/healthcare
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Risk to Life Medical Treatment/healthcare

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee based on persecution for a Convention ground (sexual orientation)
  2. 2 Whether claimant rebutted presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Whether minor claimant is a person in need of protection because of medical condition (epilepsy)

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because she did not seek higher police or defence assistance despite advice and available avenues; therefore no well‑founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground. The minor's medical risk stems from Venezuela's inadequate health infrastructure, which is expressly excluded from protection under s.97(1)(b)(iv); therefore both claims fail.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected. Principal claimant and minor claimant are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX are rejected (Decision dated 20 January 2004).