TB4-03514

TB4-03514

Panel accepts that the husband was abducted and that the claimant was threatened, but rejects that these events were shown to be politically motivated or that the husband was a member of UNITA; because the nexus to a Convention ground was not established and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection, the claimants do not meet the tests under sections 96 or 97 and the claims must be rejected.

Citation
TB4-03514
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (designated Representative): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Reasons for Decision (final)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, State Protection, Imputed Political Opinion, Credibility, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Refugee Protection Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection State Protection Imputed Political Opinion +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (designated Representative)

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing Reasons for Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity and admissibility under section 106
  2. 2 Whether claimants meet definition of Convention refugee under section 96
  3. 3 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Panel accepts that the husband was abducted and that the claimant was threatened, but rejects that these events were shown to be politically motivated or that the husband was a member of UNITA; because the nexus to a Convention ground was not established and the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of effective state protection, the claimants do not meet the tests under sections 96 or 97 and the claims must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims TB4-03514, TB4-03534, TB4-03535 and TB4-03536 are rejected.