TA8-06118

TA8-06118

The claim is rejected because the claimant was found not credible and failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution; additionally Bogota was found to be a viable Internal Flight Alternative and state protection there would be adequate, therefore protection under ss.96-97 IRPA is not warranted.

Citation
TA8-06118
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Counsel not retained)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision
Outcome
claim rejected
Legal Topics
Credibility, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Persecution, Particular Social Group, Failure to Seek Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Persecution Particular Social Group +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Counsel not retained)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is credible
  2. 2 Whether claimant was associated with a human rights organization and therefore at risk from FARC/AUC
  3. 3 Whether Bogota is a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant was found not credible and failed to establish a serious possibility of persecution; additionally Bogota was found to be a viable Internal Flight Alternative and state protection there would be adequate, therefore protection under ss.96-97 IRPA is not warranted.

Court Disposition

claim rejected

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim rejected pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act