TA5-08424

TA5-08424

The panel found the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence because reliable documentary evidence demonstrated Jamaican institutions and measures addressing domestic violence, the claimant delayed filing and re‑availed to Jamaica/Switzerland, and therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TA5-08424
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, State Protection, Delay in Claiming, Re‑availment, Convention Against Torture, Protection Under S.97 IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence State Protection +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX

Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee based on membership of a particular social group (woman subjected to domestic violence)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in Jamaica
  3. 3 Whether delay and re‑availment undermine the claimant's credibility and subjective fear

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence because reliable documentary evidence demonstrated Jamaican institutions and measures addressing domestic violence, the claimant delayed filing and re‑availed to Jamaica/Switzerland, and therefore the claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimant's claim for refugee protection
  • No finding of danger of torture or risk to life/cruel and unusual treatment under s.97