TB5-03697

TB5-03697

The claimants failed to rebut the strong presumption that Georgia could provide adequate state protection because they sought police assistance only once, did not take reasonable steps to pursue additional protection, and did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the state was unwilling or unable to protect them; therefore they are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB5-03697
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (rejection)
Outcome
Claimants' refugee claims rejected
Legal Topics
State Protection, Blood Feud, Presumption of State Protection, Exhaustion of Local Remedies
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law (state Protection) State Protection Blood Feud Presumption of State Protection Exhaustion of Local Remedies

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (rejection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants face a serious possibility of torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return to Georgia
  2. 2 Whether effective state protection was available and whether claimants rebutted the presumption of state protection
  3. 3 Whether claimants exhausted available state remedies before seeking refugee protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to rebut the strong presumption that Georgia could provide adequate state protection because they sought police assistance only once, did not take reasonable steps to pursue additional protection, and did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the state was unwilling or unable to protect them; therefore they are not persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claimants' refugee claims rejected

Orders

  • Claimants are not persons in need of protection within the meaning of section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; claims dismissed