TA4-07383

TA4-07383

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Dominica can provide adequate state protection: documentary and police evidence show mechanisms and efforts to address domestic violence, the claimant reported incidents to police and there is no clear convincing evidence of police collusion or inability to protect; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA4-07383
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; removal to Dominica would not subject claimant personally to risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or torture.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Gender Related Persecution, Credibility and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence State Protection Domestic Violence Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (convention Refugee / Person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision at the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adequate state protection is available in Dominica
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee on a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Dominica can provide adequate state protection: documentary and police evidence show mechanisms and efforts to address domestic violence, the claimant reported incidents to police and there is no clear convincing evidence of police collusion or inability to protect; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; removal to Dominica would not subject claimant personally to risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or torture.