TA9-05263

TA9-05263

The panel found the gang attacks were motivated by financial gain and constituted generalized criminal violence common in Trinidad; therefore there was no nexus to a Convention ground and the risk faced is a generalized risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii) IRPA, leading to denial of refugee protection and protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA9-05263
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)(b)) / Hearing and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA; claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Generalized Risk Exception, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Race Based Persecution, Criminal Gang Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Generalized Risk Exception Nexus to Convention Grounds Race Based Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)(b)) / Hearing and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the harm from a criminal gang is a generalized risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found the gang attacks were motivated by financial gain and constituted generalized criminal violence common in Trinidad; therefore there was no nexus to a Convention ground and the risk faced is a generalized risk excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii) IRPA, leading to denial of refugee protection and protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA; claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; no protection granted