TA3-04991

TA3-04991

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because credible documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrated that the Philippines has functioning legal and institutional mechanisms to protect women from domestic violence and the claimants did not make reasonable efforts to access those protections; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA3-04991
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (aka XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX); Daughter Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Final Decision (refusal)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Particular Social Group, Domestic Violence, Gender Related Persecution, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Gender Rights Criminal Law (domestic Violence) State Protection Particular Social Group Domestic Violence Gender Related Persecution +1 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (aka XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Daughter Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Final Decision (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under ss.96/97(1) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing proof
  3. 3 Whether state protection was unavailable or objectively unreasonable to seek

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because credible documentary and testimonial evidence demonstrated that the Philippines has functioning legal and institutional mechanisms to protect women from domestic violence and the claimants did not make reasonable efforts to access those protections; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed
  • No protection granted under ss.96/97(1) IRPA