TA8-03885

TA8-03885

Although the claimants were found credible and identity established, the panel held the harm feared arises from generalized criminality and perception of wealth (not a protected ground) and the female's fear of rape stems from endemic crime rather than sex-based persecution; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA8-03885
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX; Claimant (female): XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX (alias XXXXXX XXXX XXXX-XXXX)
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Particular Social Group, Gender Related Persecution, Generalized Criminality, Credibility and Identity
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Particular Social Group Gender Related Persecution Generalized Criminality +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX (alias XXXXXX XXXX XXXX-XXXX)

Claimant (female)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether 'wealth' constitutes a particular social group

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimants were found credible and identity established, the panel held the harm feared arises from generalized criminality and perception of wealth (not a protected ground) and the female's fear of rape stems from endemic crime rather than sex-based persecution; therefore claimants are neither Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA