TA4-06929

TA4-06929

The claims are rejected because the panel found the core allegations not credible and concluded that effective state protection was available and unexhausted, so the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA4-06929
Parties
Claimant (principal): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (child): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (child): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Particular Social Group, Race, Political Opinion, Detention, Credibility, Risk of Torture, Change of Circumstances
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law State Protection Particular Social Group Race Political Opinion Detention +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (principal)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (spouse)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (child)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (child)

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether claimants established a well-founded fear of persecution on Convention grounds
  2. 2 credibility of claimants' account
  3. 3 availability and adequacy of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claims are rejected because the panel found the core allegations not credible and concluded that effective state protection was available and unexhausted, so the claimants failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee claims of the four claimants are rejected
  • Claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA