TA4-19482

TA4-19482

Guideline 7 para 19 does not breach natural justice because Chairperson and IRPA authorize procedures and members may question first; objective country evidence and recent developments show Peru provides effective state protection against Sendero Luminoso and related threats; claimants failed to rebut presumption of protection and their conduct (failure to seek asylum in USA, returning to Peru) undermines subjective fear and credibility; therefore claimants are not Convention refugees, not in need of protection, and removal would not more likely than not expose them to torture.

Citation
TA4-19482
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Younger Daughter: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Son in Law: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Older Daughter: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Grandson: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant Counsel: Jack Davis; Minister Counsel: Minister's Counsel; Designated Representative: Designated Representative XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision Rendered by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, State Protection, Natural Justice, Hearing Procedures, Guidelines, Questioning Order, Credibility, Re‑availment of Protection, Change of Circumstances, Abuse of Process, Illegal Entry, Persecution, Risk of Torture, Peru
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection State Protection Natural Justice Hearing Procedures Guidelines +9 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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Younger Daughter

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Son in Law

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Older Daughter

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Grandson

Jack Davis

Claimant Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Minister Counsel

Designated Representative XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Hearing and Decision Rendered by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Guideline 7 para 19 requiring members or RPOs to question first breaches natural justice
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a well‑founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection exists in Peru against Sendero Luminoso and related groups

Ratio Decidendi

Guideline 7 para 19 does not breach natural justice because Chairperson and IRPA authorize procedures and members may question first; objective country evidence and recent developments show Peru provides effective state protection against Sendero Luminoso and related threats; claimants failed to rebut presumption of protection and their conduct (failure to seek asylum in USA, returning to Peru) undermines subjective fear and credibility; therefore claimants are not Convention refugees, not in need of protection, and removal would not more likely than not expose them to torture.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; claimants found not to be Convention refugees
  • Findings that claimants are not persons in need of protection and that removal would not more likely than not result in torture; no credible basis under section 107(2) of IRPA