TB0-11612

TB0-11612

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Colombia can provide adequate state protection because they did not take reasonable steps to pursue or follow up with authorities, withheld a pivotal threatening note and made omissions in their PIF that undermined credibility; documentary and country evidence show state mechanisms (police, GAULA, National Protection Unit) capable of protection, therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
TB0-11612
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX; Secondary Claimant (common Law Spouse): XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Decision by the Refugee Protection Division (first Instance)
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Convention Refugee Determination, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Convention Refugee Determination Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Country Conditions

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant (common Law Spouse)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (irpa) / Hearing and Decision by the Refugee Protection Division (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection was available in Colombia and whether claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Colombia can provide adequate state protection because they did not take reasonable steps to pursue or follow up with authorities, withheld a pivotal threatening note and made omissions in their PIF that undermined credibility; documentary and country evidence show state mechanisms (police, GAULA, National Protection Unit) capable of protection, therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division dismisses and rejects the refugee protection claims; no protection granted