TA8-21503

TA8-21503

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities and with clear and convincing evidence, did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection from Jamaican authorities, and the lengthy delay in making the refugee claim undermined the credibility of a well-founded fear; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TA8-21503
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Co Claimant (spouse): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Co Claimant (son): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
State Protection, Well Founded Fear, Delay in Making Claim, Victim of Criminality, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Well Founded Fear Delay in Making Claim Victim of Criminality Credibility +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Co Claimant (spouse)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Co Claimant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision Refugee Protection Division Reasons and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Jamaica is available and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection on a balance of probabilities and with clear and convincing evidence, did not take all reasonable steps to seek protection from Jamaican authorities, and the lengthy delay in making the refugee claim undermined the credibility of a well-founded fear; therefore the claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims