TB7-05953

TB7-05953

The claimant's refugee protection claim is rejected because she failed to demonstrate the required subjective fear, did not seek asylum in the first safe country (the United States) for which no satisfactory explanation was provided, and the evidence shows only a mere possibility of harm rather than a serious possibility of persecution or a personalized risk under IRPA s.96 and s.97.

Citation
TB7-05953
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX); Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Claimant: Me Raoul Boulakia; Counsel for the Minister: N/A; Tribunal/panel: Me Robert K. Riley
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Membership in a Particular Social Group, Gender Based Persecution, Asylum Shopping, Risk Assessment Under IRPA S.96 and S.97
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Membership in a Particular Social Group Gender Based Persecution Asylum Shopping Risk Assessment Under IRPA S.96 and S.97

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Me Raoul Boulakia

Counsel for the Claimant

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Me Robert K. Riley

Tribunal/panel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has subjective fear of persecution
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should have sought asylum in the first safe country (United States)
  3. 3 Whether membership in the particular social group of Haitian women establishes a serious possibility of persecution

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's refugee protection claim is rejected because she failed to demonstrate the required subjective fear, did not seek asylum in the first safe country (the United States) for which no satisfactory explanation was provided, and the evidence shows only a mere possibility of harm rather than a serious possibility of persecution or a personalized risk under IRPA s.96 and s.97.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee and is not a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division rejects the refugee protection claim