TA6-10155

TA6-10155

The principal claimant was found to be a Convention refugee because she credibly established MDC affiliation, past targeted assaults and threats creating a serious risk of persecution on return; the male and female claimants were rejected because they failed to establish personal risk beyond a mere possibility and their association with the principal claimant was localized and insufficient to meet the standard for protection.

Citation
TA6-10155
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Male Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Female Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Principal claimant accepted as Convention refugee; male and female claimants rejected as Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Political Opinion, Particular Social Group, Persecution, Reavailment, Domestic Violence, Non‑refoulement
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Political Opinion Particular Social Group Persecution Reavailment +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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Male Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Female Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (irpa) / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Claimants' identity and nationality
  2. 2 Whether principal claimant faces persecution for political opinion (MDC support)
  3. 3 Whether male and female claimants face persecution as family members of principal claimant or members of a particular social group

Ratio Decidendi

The principal claimant was found to be a Convention refugee because she credibly established MDC affiliation, past targeted assaults and threats creating a serious risk of persecution on return; the male and female claimants were rejected because they failed to establish personal risk beyond a mere possibility and their association with the principal claimant was localized and insufficient to meet the standard for protection.

Court Disposition

Principal claimant accepted as Convention refugee; male and female claimants rejected as Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Grant refugee protection to principal claimant pursuant to s.96 IRPA
  • Reject refugee protection claims of male and female claimants; no protection under s.96 or s.97 IRPA