MB2-00514

MB2-00514

The claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated, there was no established nexus between the alleged extortion/criminality and a Convention ground, and the claimant failed to demonstrate a personalized risk under s.97 IRPA; therefore the refugee protection claim is rejected.

Citation
MB2-00514
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Manuel Antonio Centurion; Panel Member: Me Eveline Fiset; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection (s97 Irpa), Credibility Assessment, Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection, Extortion, Delay in Claiming, Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection (s97 Irpa) Credibility Assessment Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection +3 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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Manuel Antonio Centurion

Claimant's Counsel

Me Eveline Fiset

Panel Member

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa) / Decision by Refugee Protection Division

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 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of the claimant's narrative and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's evidence was not credible or sufficiently corroborated, there was no established nexus between the alleged extortion/criminality and a Convention ground, and the claimant failed to demonstrate a personalized risk under s.97 IRPA; therefore the refugee protection claim is rejected.

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected

Orders

  • Refugee protection claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is rejected