MB6-04744

MB6-04744

The claim is rejected because the fear is directed at a private criminal actor with no demonstrated nexus to a Convention ground or state persecution, the claimant failed to establish state involvement or inability to protect under s.97(1), and the claimant's testimony lacked credibility and was undermined by his failure to seek protection in Mexico or the United States; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Citation
MB6-04744
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; refugee protection claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility Assessment, Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility Assessment Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision on Refugee Protection Claim (reasons for Decision)

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 alleged fear has nexus to a Convention ground or state agent

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the fear is directed at a private criminal actor with no demonstrated nexus to a Convention ground or state persecution, the claimant failed to establish state involvement or inability to protect under s.97(1), and the claimant's testimony lacked credibility and was undermined by his failure to seek protection in Mexico or the United States; therefore he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claimant is not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection; refugee protection claim rejected.