TA9-02416

TA9-02416

The claim is rejected because the claimant's unexplained and significant delay in claiming, multiple material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration undermined her credibility and because she failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in St. Vincent with clear and convincing evidence; therefore there was no serious possibility of persecution and the claims fail.

Citation
TA9-02416
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Reasons and Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
claims rejected; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Sur Place Claim, State Protection, Delay in Claiming, Credibility and Corroboration, Domestic Violence, Police Response, Gender Based Persecution, Negative Inference From Omissions
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Family Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Domestic Violence Law Sur Place Claim State Protection +6 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (immigration and Refugee Protection Act) / Reasons and Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant demonstrated a subjective and objectively well-founded fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether undue delay in claiming and inconsistencies undermine credibility
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection in St. Vincent and the Grenadines is available and was sought

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant's unexplained and significant delay in claiming, multiple material inconsistencies and lack of corroboration undermined her credibility and because she failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in St. Vincent with clear and convincing evidence; therefore there was no serious possibility of persecution and the claims fail.

Court Disposition

claims rejected; claimants not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claims of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX and the dependent minor claimants and dismisses the refugee protection claims