TB1-14811

TB1-14811

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection because documentary and testimonial evidence showed the Slovak Republic is a functioning democracy that investigated and sought to prosecute the 2011 attack, the claimants did not exhaust or pursue available domestic remedies and did not present clear and convincing evidence of systemic lack of protection; therefore they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB1-14811
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Secondary Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX X; Minor Claimant: XXX XXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
State Protection, Ethnic Persecution, Hate Crimes, Country Conditions, Access to Police Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Ethnic Persecution Hate Crimes Country Conditions Access to Police Protection

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX

Secondary Claimant

XXXXXXXX X

Minor Claimant

XXX XXXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Slovak Republic provides adequate state protection to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether the claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection and qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection because documentary and testimonial evidence showed the Slovak Republic is a functioning democracy that investigated and sought to prosecute the 2011 attack, the claimants did not exhaust or pursue available domestic remedies and did not present clear and convincing evidence of systemic lack of protection; therefore they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection