TB1-15452

TB1-15452

Poland is a functioning democracy so the presumption of state protection applies; the claimants failed to rebut that presumption because they did not demonstrate they exhausted or reasonably sought state protection nor provided clear and convincing evidence that the state was unable or unwilling to protect them; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-15452
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Spouse / Co Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons Issued September 7, 2012)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Ethnic Persecution (roma), Burden of Proof, Exhaustion of State Remedies, Risk of Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights State Protection Ethnic Persecution (roma) Burden of Proof Exhaustion of State Remedies Risk of Torture

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse / Co Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 96 and 97(1)) / Decision (reasons Issued September 7, 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants qualify as Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Poland is available and effective

Ratio Decidendi

Poland is a functioning democracy so the presumption of state protection applies; the claimants failed to rebut that presumption because they did not demonstrate they exhausted or reasonably sought state protection nor provided clear and convincing evidence that the state was unable or unwilling to protect them; therefore they are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected; no protection granted