TB3-00823

TB3-00823

The tribunal found that Colombia retains effective state institutions and has taken serious efforts against the FARC, the claimants did not test domestic remedies and offered insufficient objective evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB3-00823
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision
Outcome
claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Exhaustion of State Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Exhaustion of State Remedies

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted presumption of state protection in Colombia
  2. 2 Whether claimants exhausted domestic remedies by seeking state protection
  3. 3 Credibility of claimants' evidence of targeted threats and attacks

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that Colombia retains effective state institutions and has taken serious efforts against the FARC, the claimants did not test domestic remedies and offered insufficient objective evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection by clear and convincing evidence; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

claims rejected

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection pursuant to ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA are rejected