TB1-02782

TB1-02782

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Malaysia can provide adequate state protection: objective country evidence and the claimant's own actions (securing an Interim Protection Order, leaving Malaysia shortly thereafter, lack of sustained attempts to pursue local remedies) demonstrate available remedies and responsive authorities; the claimant's credibility regarding timing of the claim was undermined; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-02782
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims rejected: claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Domestic Violence, Gender Based Persecution, Credibility, Protection Orders
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Family Law Human Rights Law State Protection Domestic Violence Gender Based Persecution Credibility +1 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Malaysia provides adequate state protection to the claimant and minors
  2. 2 Whether the claimant rebutted the presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's account and timing of the refugee claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption that Malaysia can provide adequate state protection: objective country evidence and the claimant's own actions (securing an Interim Protection Order, leaving Malaysia shortly thereafter, lack of sustained attempts to pursue local remedies) demonstrate available remedies and responsive authorities; the claimant's credibility regarding timing of the claim was undermined; therefore 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.

Orders

  • Refugee claims dismissed; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.