The RPD erred in finding Maracaibo a reasonable IFA: objective and concrete evidence of the collapse of medical services in Venezuela combined with the appellants' advanced age and serious chronic medical conditions made relocation to Maracaibo unduly harsh and objectively unreasonable; accordingly the appellants face a personalized risk to life under s.97(1), state protection is unavailable, and the appeal is allowed with substitution that the appellants are persons in need of protection.
Source excerpt
Internal flight alternative
State protection
Medical evidence and access to healthcare
Nexus to convention grounds
Credibility
Targeted extortion and political militias (colectivos)
The tribunal rejected the claim because it found the claimant not credible on material aspects of his narrative and, in the alternative, concluded that even if the events occurred, the claimant failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Kosovo by taking reasonable steps to seek protection; evidence (including the National Documentation Package) indicated sufficiency of protection and internal relocation options, so the claimant did not meet the burden to qualify as a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
The panel rejected the claim because the claimant and his mother lacked credibility and subjective fear; negative inferences from failure to seek protection in Italy and the United States, withdrawal and return to Colombia (re-availment), inconsistencies, omissions and absence of reasonable supporting documentation meant the claimant did not establish persecution on a Convention ground nor personal risk under s.97.