TB0-11638

TB0-11638

The claimants failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Colombia cannot provide adequate state protection; moreover their failure to seek asylum in the USA and multiple returns to Colombia undermine their claimed subjective fear. On the totality of evidence, including country documents showing functioning state institutions and efforts to curb criminality, the presumption of state protection was not rebutted; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-11638
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision (merits)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Failure to Claim Elsewhere, Re‑availment, Burden of Proof, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Failure to Claim Elsewhere Re‑availment Burden of Proof +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (minor)

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection exists in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Colombia cannot provide adequate state protection; moreover their failure to seek asylum in the USA and multiple returns to Colombia undermine their claimed subjective fear. On the totality of evidence, including country documents showing functioning state institutions and efforts to curb criminality, the presumption of state protection was not rebutted; accordingly the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims (Decision dated November 28, 2011)