TA8-03299

TA8-03299

The Board found material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the claimant's evidence, documentary country evidence showed the State of Colombia could provide adequate protection on a balance of probabilities, and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; derivative claims likewise fail.

Citation
TA8-03299
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
All four claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility Assessment, Agent of Persecution, Derivative Claims, Convention Refugee Status, Failure to Seek Protection in Another Country, Re‑availment
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law State Protection Credibility Assessment Agent of Persecution Derivative Claims Convention Refugee Status +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Child

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a credible witness
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was targeted by FARC or AUC as an agent of persecution
  3. 3 Whether Colombia can provide adequate state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The Board found material contradictions, omissions and implausibilities in the claimant's evidence, documentary country evidence showed the State of Colombia could provide adequate protection on a balance of probabilities, and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and therefore is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; derivative claims likewise fail.

Court Disposition

All four claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims denied: principal claimant and three derivative claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection; derivative claims dismissed