MA9-06350

MA9-06350

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection because they did not seek police or judicial protection and offered no compelling justification for that failure; therefore, on the balance of probabilities the state could have provided adequate protection, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.

Citation
MA9-06350
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (merits)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected.
Legal Topics
State Protection, Convention Refugee Status, Criminality and Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law State Protection Convention Refugee Status Criminality and Persecution

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants rebutted the presumption that the Colombian state could provide protection
  2. 2 Whether claimants took all reasonable steps to seek state protection before fleeing
  3. 3 Whether the claimants qualify as Convention refugees or persons in need of protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection because they did not seek police or judicial protection and offered no compelling justification for that failure; therefore, on the balance of probabilities the state could have provided adequate protection, so they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected.

Orders

  • Claimants are not Convention refugees within section 96 of the IRPA.
  • Claimants are not persons in need of protection.