TB0-00158

TB0-00158

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence because documentary evidence was mixed and Saint Vincent had already taken serious and repeated measures (arrest, conviction and imprisonment of one uncle and issuance of a protection order against the other), which cumulatively constitute adequate protection; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB0-00158
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Associated Claimant: XXXX-XXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision
Outcome
Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Persecution by Family Members, Rape, Protection Orders, Adequacy of State Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Family Law Gender Based Violence State Protection Persecution by Family Members +5 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX-XXX XXXXX XXXXX

Associated Claimant

Minister (Citizenship and Immigration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Saint Vincent state protection is adequate

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence because documentary evidence was mixed and Saint Vincent had already taken serious and repeated measures (arrest, conviction and imprisonment of one uncle and issuance of a protection order against the other), which cumulatively constitute adequate protection; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; no refugee protection granted