Nicholas Keung of the Toronto Star says,

The issue of state protection has become more contentious following a string of recent federal court challenges – involving refugee claimants from Turkey, Kenya, Mexico, St. Vincent and, in Sterbyci’s case, Albania – that question assessments made by the Immigration and Refugee Board and enforcement officials…

TO PROVE ONE’S CASE, the refugee board suggests, claimants must demonstrate that the “state apparatus” of protection has collapsed, that people in similar situations are also not getting protection, or explain how they sought government help without success.

Refugee lawyers Luyt and Boulakia argue those guidelines and country-condition reports are selectively applied, and the recent federal court decisions would seem to support that.

… state protection cannot be automatically assumed in a democratic country.

Queen’s University immigration law professor Sharryn Aiken said it is only a partial victory for these refugee claimants, because their cases have only been referred back for redetermination; they still face removal from Canada.

However, it underlines the need in Canada for a refugee appeal division, a body with the authority to not only revisit evidence, but reverse wrong decisions, she said.