MA6-01083

MA6-01083

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants lacked credibility and corroboration, the risk they described is generalized criminal violence rather than persecution on a Convention ground, and Article 1 CAT does not apply to non-state criminal gangs; therefore they failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Citation
MA6-01083
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (daughter): XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Anthony Kako; Panel Member: Me Michel Jobin; Refugee Protection Officer: Refugee Protection Officer; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion (imputed), Membership of a Particular Social Group (family), Credibility, Article 1 CAT, Generalized Violence Vs Persecution
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion (imputed) Membership of a Particular Social Group (family) Credibility +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (daughter)

Me Anthony Kako

Claimant's Counsel

Me Michel Jobin

Panel Member

Refugee Protection Officer

Refugee Protection Officer

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under IRPA s.97(1)
  3. 3 Whether the risk is individualized/persecutory or generalized criminality

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the claimants lacked credibility and corroboration, the risk they described is generalized criminal violence rather than persecution on a Convention ground, and Article 1 CAT does not apply to non-state criminal gangs; therefore they failed to prove they are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under IRPA.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims dismissed; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim rejected