TA7-03026

TA7-03026

The claimants fail to establish that removal to Indonesia would expose the minor to a risk that is not caused by Indonesia's inability to provide adequate medical care; Indonesia has doctors and facilities and there is no evidence of state denial or persecutory conduct, therefore the claimants are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b)(iv).

Citation
TA7-03026
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa S.97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Person in Need of Protection, Inadequate Medical Care, Risk to Life, Persecution, Section 97(1)(b)(iv) IRPA, H&c Application
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Health Law Humanitarian and Compassionate Applications Person in Need of Protection Inadequate Medical Care Risk to Life +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXX

Spouse

XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa S.97) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the minor claimant faces a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment due to inadequate medical care in Indonesia
  3. 3 Whether the unavailability or inadequacy of medical care in the home state falls within s.97(1)(b)(iv) exclusion

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants fail to establish that removal to Indonesia would expose the minor to a risk that is not caused by Indonesia's inability to provide adequate medical care; Indonesia has doctors and facilities and there is no evidence of state denial or persecutory conduct, therefore the claimants are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b)(iv).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claims of the principal claimant, spouse and minor claimant.