MA5-02429

MA5-02429

The claimant's fear arose from extortion by paramilitaries and is not connected to a Convention ground; objective evidence of changed circumstances, absence of subsequent threats to close family, the claimant's own concessions that time and change of occupation reduce risk, and the lack of ongoing targeting demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that she would not face persecution, torture, or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore the claim fails under both s.96 and s.97.

Citation
MA5-02429
Parties
Claimant: Mrs. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: Normand Leduc; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected — claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Nexus, Credibility, Change of Circumstances, Extortion by Non State Actors
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Protection Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Nexus Credibility Change of Circumstances +1 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Normand Leduc

Refugee Protection Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa Ss.96 97) / Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the claimed risk has nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's fear arose from extortion by paramilitaries and is not connected to a Convention ground; objective evidence of changed circumstances, absence of subsequent threats to close family, the claimant's own concessions that time and change of occupation reduce risk, and the lack of ongoing targeting demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that she would not face persecution, torture, or a risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment on return; therefore the claim fails under both s.96 and s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected — claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection

Orders

  • Claimant's refugee protection claim is dismissed; removal may proceed subject to applicable administrative processes