TB2-10264

TB2-10264

Although the claimants were found credible and their identity and incidents were established, they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they did not seek or exhaust available protection measures in Colombia, did not cooperate with GAULA investigation, and therefore did not provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection was inadequate; accordingly they are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB2-10264
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (wife): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associated Claimant (son): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (reasons)
Outcome
Refugee claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Credibility, Extortion, Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law State Protection Credibility Extortion Convention Refugee Persons in Need of 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (wife)

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associated Claimant (son)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (reasons)

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimants were found credible and their identity and incidents were established, they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection because they did not seek or exhaust available protection measures in Colombia, did not cooperate with GAULA investigation, and therefore did not provide clear and convincing evidence that state protection was inadequate; accordingly they are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Refugee claims rejected

Orders

  • Refugee claims under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA are rejected
  • No finding of serious possibility of persecution or need for protection