TA8-00660

TA8-00660

The claimants' fear derives from criminality/vendetta rather than a Convention ground, they failed to establish nexus to a protected ground, and they did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Uruguay with clear and convincing evidence; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the claims are rejected.

Citation
TA8-00660
Parties
Claimant (first): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (second): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (third): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (fourth, Minor): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection rejected; claimants found neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, State Protection, Particular Social Group, Political Opinion, Nexus, Victim of Criminality, Family
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee State Protection Particular Social Group Political Opinion Nexus +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (first)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (second)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (third)

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (fourth, Minor)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between the claimed risk and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' fear derives from criminality/vendetta rather than a Convention ground, they failed to establish nexus to a protected ground, and they did not rebut the presumption of adequate state protection in Uruguay with clear and convincing evidence; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection and the claims are rejected.

Court Disposition

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