TB8-06975

TB8-06975

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the record establishes the principal was targeted by criminals for ransom as part of a generalized extortion enterprise targeting professionals and those perceived as wealthy; being named in media or singled out by a gang in that context did not elevate the risk to a personalized risk under s.97 nor establish nexus to Convention grounds under s.96, therefore the RPD decision was correct and must be confirmed.

Citation
TB8-06975
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / RAD Decision Confirming RPD Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Kidnapping, Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Kidnapping Generalized Risk Vs Personalized Risk Standard of Review

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division / RAD Decision Confirming RPD Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD erred in finding no nexus to Convention grounds (s.96 IRPA)
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants faced a personalized risk sufficient for protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the risk of kidnapping was a generalized criminal risk or individualized targeting

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the record establishes the principal was targeted by criminals for ransom as part of a generalized extortion enterprise targeting professionals and those perceived as wealthy; being named in media or singled out by a gang in that context did not elevate the risk to a personalized risk under s.97 nor establish nexus to Convention grounds under s.96, therefore the RPD decision was correct and must be confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RPD decision confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed that the Appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act