MB1-00466

MB1-00466

The panel accepted that the assault likely occurred but found the principal claimant lacked a sustained subjective fear and failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with direct, relevant and compelling evidence; country documentation showed improved police training and mechanisms, so the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
MB1-00466
Parties
Principal Claimant: Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant (daughter): XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, State Protection, Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa), Person in Need of Protection (s.97 Irpa), Credibility, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Related Persecution Sexual Assault Domestic Violence State Protection Convention Refugee (s.96 Irpa) +3 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant (daughter)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97 of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has a subjective fear of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted that the assault likely occurred but found the principal claimant lacked a sustained subjective fear and failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with direct, relevant and compelling evidence; country documentation showed improved police training and mechanisms, so the claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claim rejected; refugee claim denied