TA7-12970

TA7-12970

The decision is based on adverse credibility findings and evidentiary insufficiency: the principal claimant and her mother were found not credible, the principal claimant unreasonably failed to seek protection while resident in the United States and re‑availed by sending her son back to Venezuela, and the identity/status of the alleged agent of harm and nexus to a Convention ground were not established; therefore the claimants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or an individualized risk under section 97(1) on the required standards.

Citation
TA7-12970
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX; Son: XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX; Mother: XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimants' claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Political Opinion, Gender Based Persecution, Nexus, Credibility, Failure to Seek Protection in Third Country, Re‑availment, Risk of Torture, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Political Opinion Gender Based Persecution Nexus +6 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX

Son

XXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Mother

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Refugee Protection Division Hearing and Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether there is nexus between alleged harm and a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The decision is based on adverse credibility findings and evidentiary insufficiency: the principal claimant and her mother were found not credible, the principal claimant unreasonably failed to seek protection while resident in the United States and re‑availed by sending her son back to Venezuela, and the identity/status of the alleged agent of harm and nexus to a Convention ground were not established; therefore the claimants failed to prove a serious possibility of persecution under section 96 or an individualized risk under section 97(1) on the required standards.

Court Disposition

Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimants' claims; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the claimants' claim for refugee protection (claim dismissed).