MA9-06715

MA9-06715

The claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Saint Lucia is unable or unwilling to protect her; Saint Lucia demonstrated functioning criminal and family law remedies and support services and the prior police response (arrest, conviction and fine) shows available protection, therefore no serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a risk meeting s.97(1)(b).

Citation
MA9-06715
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Burden of Proof, Domestic Violence, Stalking, Protection Orders
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Gender Based Violence Criminal Law Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Status Burden of Proof +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Saint Lucia is able and willing to protect the claimant from her abuser
  2. 2 Whether the claimant established a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground or a need for protection under IRPA s.97(1)(b)
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's testimony and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Saint Lucia is unable or unwilling to protect her; Saint Lucia demonstrated functioning criminal and family law remedies and support services and the prior police response (arrest, conviction and fine) shows available protection, therefore no serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor a risk meeting s.97(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection under IRPA