Category: State Protection

The court set aside a refusal of a claim for refugee status. The applicant a lesbian had alleged she would suffer persecution as a soldier due to her sexual orientation. The Court set aside the decision holding the tribunal erred in its assessment of the expert evidence; in the manner in which it dealt with the issue of prosecution vs persecution and in the manner in which the tribunal took judicil notice.

The Court set aside a decision where the Court held that there was state protection. The Board failed to consider expert evidence that went to the heart of the claim.

The Court set aside a decision rejecting a claim for refugee status. The Board denied natural justice by not disclosing a document it relied on to reject the claim. The Board erred in finding state protection when the state agents were the agents of persecution. Also the Board erred in finding no subjective fear given there was no credibility finding.

The Court found that when assessing state protection the fact that the applicant would be required to give up a business was not sufficient to find no state protection unless there was evidence he could not earn a living otherwise.

The Court discussed the nature of the evidence and burden of proof regarding the issue of state protection. The Court held that the evidence must be credible and reliable and worthy of weight.

The Court set aside a finding that there was state protection noting: "My reading of the Decision in the context of the record is that it was the Board that did not do enough to address the Applicant’s evidence concerning the ineffectuality of police action in a context where she was under daily threats from an influential perpetrator who, in addition to wanting to harm the Applicant, showed no hesitation in threatening the police themselves."

The Applicant claimed refugee protection based on spousal abuse and presented a letter from the Consulate of her country confirming they could not protect her. The Court set aside the decision finding the conclusion on state protection unreasonable.

The Court set aside a finding of state protection holding that the tribunal erred in concluding that there was no evidence to support the lack of protection. The Court also held that the tribunal erred in ignoring the Applicant's own evidence on this issue.