TA6-05845

TA6-05845

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, the unexplained lengthy delay undermined their asserted subjective fear and credibility, and no compelling reasons exception applied; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and their claims are rejected.

Citation
TA6-05845
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX); Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division) / Decision Following Merits Hearing
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Delay and Credibility, Compelling Reasons Exception (s.108(4) Irpa), Convention Refugee Determination, Persons in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Family and Domestic Violence State Protection Gender Based Persecution Delay and Credibility +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX)

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division) / Decision Following Merits Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection
  2. 2 Whether the lengthy delay in claiming undermines subjective fear and credibility
  3. 3 Whether the compelling reasons exception under s.108(4) IRPA applies

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence, the unexplained lengthy delay undermined their asserted subjective fear and credibility, and no compelling reasons exception applied; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and their claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under IRPA

Orders

  • Claims rejected