TA5-00713

TA5-00713

The claimant failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chile was unable or unwilling to protect her; given available legal remedies and institutions and her capacity to seek assistance, it was unreasonable for her not to pursue state protection; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.

Citation
TA5-00713
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (oral and Written Reasons)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; application for Convention refugee status denied; not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
State Protection, Particular Social Group, Gender Related Persecution, Domestic Violence, Credibility, Convention Refugee Status, Section 97 Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence Administrative Law State Protection Particular Social Group Gender Related Persecution +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision (oral and Written Reasons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a member of a particular social group as a victim of gender violence
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection was available in Chile
  3. 3 Whether claimant made reasonable efforts to seek state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chile was unable or unwilling to protect her; given available legal remedies and institutions and her capacity to seek assistance, it was unreasonable for her not to pursue state protection; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; application for Convention refugee status denied; not a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Application for Convention refugee status refused