TC1-00747

TC1-00747

The appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the balance of probabilities because Colombian authorities provided immediate and ongoing protection measures and programs, the appellants left soon after incidents and did not exhaust or follow up available remedies, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC1-00747
Parties
Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent); Decision Maker (panel): Pamela Arnott
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Country Conditions, Burden of Proof, Exhaustion of State Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights State Protection Convention Refugee Status Country Conditions Burden of Proof +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant (person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal)

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Pamela Arnott

Decision Maker (panel)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal / Appeal Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether state protection was available and adequate
  2. 2 Whether appellants exhausted available state remedies
  3. 3 Whether appellants meet definition of Convention refugee

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on the balance of probabilities because Colombian authorities provided immediate and ongoing protection measures and programs, the appellants left soon after incidents and did not exhaust or follow up available remedies, therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the RPD confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Act
  • The Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection