TB3-01742

TB3-01742

The claims were rejected because the Refugee Protection Division found, on the balance of probabilities and based on credibility and corroboration analysis, that the claimants did not establish a personalized risk of persecution for a Convention ground and that the evidence showed at most a generalized risk of harm; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of Canada's protection.

Citation
TB3-01742
Parties
Claimant Husband: XXXX XXXX; Claimant Wife: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision and Reasons by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of Canada's protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Persons in Need of Protection, Credibility and Corroboration, Gender Related Persecution, State Protection, Personalized Risk Vs Generalized Violence
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Protection Administrative Law Convention Refugee Persons in Need of Protection Credibility and Corroboration Gender Related Persecution +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Husband

XXXX XXXX

Claimant Wife

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision and Reasons by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of Canada's protection
  3. 3 Whether the claimants proved a personalized risk of harm from private actors

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were rejected because the Refugee Protection Division found, on the balance of probabilities and based on credibility and corroboration analysis, that the claimants did not establish a personalized risk of persecution for a Convention ground and that the evidence showed at most a generalized risk of harm; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of Canada's protection.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected — claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of Canada's protection

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee claims