TB5-11846

TB5-11846

The panel found the claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground, made adverse credibility findings based on significant omissions and inconsistencies, failed to seek state protection without adequate explanation, and country evidence showed Chile provides adequate protection; therefore on a balance of probabilities the claimants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB5-11846
Parties
Principal Claimant and Designated Representative for Minor Claimants: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Canada)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Credibility, State Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Convention Refugee Status, Risk of Torture, Child Claimants, Gender Based Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility State Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds Convention Refugee Status Risk of Torture +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant and Designated Representative for Minor Claimants

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister (Canada)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimants established nexus between feared harm and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground, made adverse credibility findings based on significant omissions and inconsistencies, failed to seek state protection without adequate explanation, and country evidence showed Chile provides adequate protection; therefore on a balance of probabilities the claimants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA and not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Claim dismissed by Refugee Protection Division decision dated February 19, 2016