TA8-07520

TA8-07520

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence because country evidence was mixed and Jamaican authorities had previously responded to her complaints; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
TA8-07520
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Related Persecution, Convention Refugee Status, Risk to Life, Domestic Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Gender Based Violence State Protection Gender Related Persecution Convention Refugee Status Risk to Life +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Claimant

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether Jamaican state protection is adequate for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection with clear and convincing evidence because country evidence was mixed and Jamaican authorities had previously responded to her complaints; therefore she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed: claimant is not a Convention refugee under section 96 of the IRPA and is not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.