MB0-01057

MB0-01057

The panel rejected the refugee protection claims because the claimants were not credible as to their subjective fear, the risk they face is generalized criminality rather than persecution for a Convention ground or state‑based torture, and there was insufficient evidence of a nexus to a protected ground or state involvement; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA or Convention Against Torture.

Citation
MB0-01057
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX; Claimant: XXXX XXXX-XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Refugee protection claims denied; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA or CAT
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Particular Social Group (family), Credibility Assessment, Internal Flight Alternative, Generalized Risk, Convention Against Torture
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Particular Social Group (family) Credibility Assessment Internal Flight Alternative +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant

XXXX XXXX-XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection) / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees by reason of membership in a particular social group (family)
  2. 2 Whether claimants face a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment amounting to persecution or need for protection
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is generalized criminality or a personalized risk linked to a protected ground

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the refugee protection claims because the claimants were not credible as to their subjective fear, the risk they face is generalized criminality rather than persecution for a Convention ground or state‑based torture, and there was insufficient evidence of a nexus to a protected ground or state involvement; accordingly they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under the IRPA or Convention Against Torture.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claims denied; claimants are not Convention refugees and are not persons in need of protection under IRPA or CAT

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims of XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX-XXXX are rejected
  • No protection granted under section 96 or paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPA or under Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture