TB0-14919

TB0-14919

The claimant failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground (s.96) because the persecution arose from generalized criminality (maras/extortion) rather than a Convention ground; although the claimant faced personal targeting, the risk is prevalent across El Salvador and therefore generalized under s.97(1)(b), so the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; the s.108(4) exception was not met for the spouse.

Citation
TB0-14919
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Claimant / Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX); Minor Claimant / Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant / Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)
Outcome
Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Nexus, Generalized Risk, Gangs (maras), Extortion, Forced Recruitment, Sexual Assault, Cessation Exception S.108(4)
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Nexus Generalized Risk +5 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)

Co Claimant / Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant / Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant / Child

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 and 97(1)) / Hearing and Decision at Refugee Protection Division (reasons Issued)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant established nexus to a Convention ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground (s.96) because the persecution arose from generalized criminality (maras/extortion) rather than a Convention ground; although the claimant faced personal targeting, the risk is prevalent across El Salvador and therefore generalized under s.97(1)(b), so the claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection; the s.108(4) exception was not met for the spouse.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of claimant and spouse are rejected under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA
  • Claims of minor children (US-born) are rejected as no fear of return to the United States was established