MA9-01848

MA9-01848

The claimant's fear arises from generalized criminality targeting those perceived to have wealth and not from persecution on a protected ground; the association is commercial and not a 'particular social group', wealthy persons are a broad subgroup not meeting Ward criteria, there is no evidence of state-sanctioned torture or persecution, therefore the claim fails under sections 96 and 97(1)(a)/(b) IRPA.

Citation
MA9-01848
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Panel: Roxane Cyr; Tribunal Officer: Isabelle Bourgeau; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection / Hearing Decision
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Particular Social Group, Imputed Political Opinion, Generalized Risk, Torture, Kidnapping, Criminal Targeting of Perceived Wealth
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Criminality and Public Security Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Particular Social Group Imputed Political Opinion +4 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Roxane Cyr

Panel

Isabelle Bourgeau

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection / Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 and paragraphs 97(1)(a) and 97(1)(b) of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether membership in the claimant's association or membership in a group of wealthy persons constitutes a 'particular social group'
  3. 3 Whether the claimant fears persecution on account of an imputed political opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's fear arises from generalized criminality targeting those perceived to have wealth and not from persecution on a protected ground; the association is commercial and not a 'particular social group', wealthy persons are a broad subgroup not meeting Ward criteria, there is no evidence of state-sanctioned torture or persecution, therefore the claim fails under sections 96 and 97(1)(a)/(b) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.