TA5-06068

TA5-06068

The claimant's harm consisted of criminal acts without sufficient nexus to a Convention ground and he failed to rebut the presumption that Guyana can provide state protection; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and his claim is rejected.

Citation
TA5-06068
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Government Representative: Refugee Protection Officer; Designated Representative: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Nexus to Protected Ground, Torture, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Country Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee State Protection Nexus to Protected Ground Torture Cruel and Unusual Treatment +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Refugee Protection Officer

Government Representative

Minister's Counsel

Designated Representative

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's fear of harm is linked to a Convention ground (nexus)
  2. 2 Whether state protection in Guyana is available and effective
  3. 3 Whether removal would expose claimant to risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or torture

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's harm consisted of criminal acts without sufficient nexus to a Convention ground and he failed to rebut the presumption that Guyana can provide state protection; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and his claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim for refugee protection rejected; claimant found not to be a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim for refugee protection rejected.