TA4-15095

TA4-15095

The claimants failed to establish an objective basis for a well-founded fear because they did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection in El Salvador with clear and convincing evidence, and their credibility was undermined by delay, illegal sojourn in the USA and inconsistencies; therefore they are not Convention refugees, are not in need of protection and removal would not expose them to torture.

Citation
TA4-15095
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Spouse/co Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Designated Representative / Refugee Protection Officer: Ivone Rodriguez
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claimants' refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees, not persons in need of protection, and there are no substantial grounds to believe removal would result in torture.
Legal Topics
Well Founded Fear, State Protection, Gang Violence (maras), Extortion, Abduction, Rape/sexual Assault, Credibility, Illegal Entry and Delay, Protection Elsewhere, Risk of Torture, Manifestly Unfounded Claims
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Well Founded Fear State Protection Gang Violence (maras) Extortion +7 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Spouse/co Claimant

Ivone Rodriguez

Designated Representative / Refugee Protection Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (refugee Protection Division) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection in El Salvador is unavailable or ineffective
  3. 3 Whether claimants meet burden to show absence of effective state protection (clear and convincing proof)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish an objective basis for a well-founded fear because they did not rebut the presumption of effective state protection in El Salvador with clear and convincing evidence, and their credibility was undermined by delay, illegal sojourn in the USA and inconsistencies; therefore they are not Convention refugees, are not in need of protection and removal would not expose them to torture.

Court Disposition

Claimants' refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees, not persons in need of protection, and there are no substantial grounds to believe removal would result in torture.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims dismissed