TA8-08354

TA8-08354

Although the panel accepted that the female claimant was sexually assaulted, the claimants failed to rebut the presumption that the Republic of South Korea could provide effective protection: the female claimant never sought police or social services, provided no reasonable explanation for that failure, and did not provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be forthcoming; consequently the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TA8-08354
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (female): XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (minor): XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Sexual Assault/rape, Particular Social Group, Credibility Assessment, Women Refugee Guidelines, Procedural Requirements
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Family Law Gender Based Violence State Protection Sexual Assault/rape Particular Social Group +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
  2. 2 Credibility of the female claimant's PIF and oral testimony
  3. 3 Whether effective and adequate state protection was available in the Republic of South Korea

Ratio Decidendi

Although the panel accepted that the female claimant was sexually assaulted, the claimants failed to rebut the presumption that the Republic of South Korea could provide effective protection: the female claimant never sought police or social services, provided no reasonable explanation for that failure, and did not provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be forthcoming; consequently the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.