VB5-01792

VB5-01792

The principal claimant's claim was rejected because the panel found on balance that he failed to prove a personal, individualized risk of persecution, torture or death on a Convention ground given improved Mogadishu conditions, his clan/family supports and prior business profile; by contrast the associate claimant and three dependants were found to face a well‑founded fear of persecution (gender‑based violence for the female claimant and forced recruitment/targeting for the male children), state protection is ineffective and no internal flight alternative exists for them, so they qualify as Convention refugees under s.96.

Citation
VB5-01792
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing (july 13, 2017)
Outcome
Principal claimant's claim rejected; associate claimant and three dependants' claims accepted as Convention refugees
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Based Persecution, State Protection, Forced Recruitment of Children, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Asylum Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Internal Flight Alternative Gender Based Persecution State Protection +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Child

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing (july 13, 2017)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 of the Act
  2. 2 Whether the principal claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the associate claimant and dependants are Convention refugees

Ratio Decidendi

The principal claimant's claim was rejected because the panel found on balance that he failed to prove a personal, individualized risk of persecution, torture or death on a Convention ground given improved Mogadishu conditions, his clan/family supports and prior business profile; by contrast the associate claimant and three dependants were found to face a well‑founded fear of persecution (gender‑based violence for the female claimant and forced recruitment/targeting for the male children), state protection is ineffective and no internal flight alternative exists for them, so they qualify as Convention refugees under s.96.

Court Disposition

Principal claimant's claim rejected; associate claimant and three dependants' claims accepted as Convention refugees

Orders

  • Principal claimant's claim rejected under section 96 and s.97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
  • Associate claimant and three dependants recognized as Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; claims accepted