TA7-13661

TA7-13661

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Saint Lucia with clear and convincing evidence, did not take reasonable steps to seek or document state protection (e.g., obtain police reports), and her substantial delay in claiming refugee protection undermined credibility; objective country evidence shows functioning laws, courts, specialized police units and support services such that protection would be reasonably forthcoming, therefore no well‑founded fear and the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA fail.

Citation
TA7-13661
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Minor: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister (Respondent)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; the joined minor claimant's claim is also rejected
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Delay in Claiming, Credibility, Sexual Assault, Psychiatric Evidence, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Family Law/domestic Violence Domestic Violence Gender Based Persecution State Protection Delay in Claiming +5 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Minor

Minister (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Final Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to s.96 IRPA by membership in a particular social group (women victims of domestic violence)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Saint Lucia is adequate and whether claimant exhausted available state remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Saint Lucia with clear and convincing evidence, did not take reasonable steps to seek or document state protection (e.g., obtain police reports), and her substantial delay in claiming refugee protection undermined credibility; objective country evidence shows functioning laws, courts, specialized police units and support services such that protection would be reasonably forthcoming, therefore no well‑founded fear and the claims under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA fail.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected: claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection; the joined minor claimant's claim is also rejected

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and the claim joined for minor XXXXX XXXXX