MA7-03978

MA7-03978

Claimants failed to discharge the burden to show a nexus between the alleged incidents and a Convention ground or a risk of torture/ill treatment; documentary evidence and facts show state protection in Argentina is generally available and an internal flight alternative is reasonable; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
MA7-03978
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXX; Son: XXXX XXXXX; Daughter: XXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and S.97(1) Protection) / Final Decision at Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Subsection 97(1) Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, State Protection, Vulnerable Persons, Credibility, Freedom of Religion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Subsection 97(1) Protection Internal Flight Alternative State Protection Vulnerable Persons +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXXX

Son

XXXX XXXXX

Daughter

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and S.97(1) Protection) / Final Decision at Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether an internal flight alternative is available and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants failed to discharge the burden to show a nexus between the alleged incidents and a Convention ground or a risk of torture/ill treatment; documentary evidence and facts show state protection in Argentina is generally available and an internal flight alternative is reasonable; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.