TA7-11620

TA7-11620

Because St. Vincent and the Grenadines is a functioning constitutional democracy with laws and institutions addressing domestic violence and rape, and because the claimants previously reported incidents that resulted in police and judicial involvement yet did not exhaust further available remedies or provide clear and convincing evidence of state inability, the presumption of state protection was not rebutted; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA7-11620
Parties
First Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Second Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (refused)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Domestic Violence, Rape, Exhaustion of Remedies, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Family and Gender Violence State Protection Gender Based Persecution Domestic Violence Rape +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

First Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Second Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Decision (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection exists in St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Ratio Decidendi

Because St. Vincent and the Grenadines is a functioning constitutional democracy with laws and institutions addressing domestic violence and rape, and because the claimants previously reported incidents that resulted in police and judicial involvement yet did not exhaust further available remedies or provide clear and convincing evidence of state inability, the presumption of state protection was not rebutted; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants found not to be Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims for refugee protection