TA8-06134

TA8-06134

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection on clear and convincing evidence because St. Lucia offered adequate protection through family court orders, police units and support services, the family court took substantive steps including protection and occupancy orders and counselling, and the claimant left the jurisdiction before allowing those remedies to be exhausted; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA8-06134
Parties
Principal Claimant and Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Minor: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Minor: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (post Hearing)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Gender Based Persecution, Protection Orders, Credibility, Psychological Evidence
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Family Law Human Rights State Protection Domestic Violence Gender Based Persecution Protection Orders +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant and Designated Representative

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Minor

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant Minor

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (post Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether state protection was available in St. Lucia
  2. 2 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of available state protection on clear and convincing evidence because St. Lucia offered adequate protection through family court orders, police units and support services, the family court took substantive steps including protection and occupancy orders and counselling, and the claimant left the jurisdiction before allowing those remedies to be exhausted; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.