2020 RLLR 17

2020 RLLR 17

The principal claimant is a Convention refugee because her participation in protests, corroborated threats, summonses and medical evidence establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Nicaragua; the husband’s claim is rejected because he produced no evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala, and a dual citizen must show risk in each country of citizenship.

Citation
2020 RLLR 17
Parties
Principal Claimant: [XXX]; Co Claimant (spouse): [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Principal claimant found to be a Convention refugee under IRPA s.96; husband (dual citizen) not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection with respect to Guatemala.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Well Founded Fear, State Persecution, Dual Citizenship, Credibility, Political Opinion
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law International Human Rights Convention Refugee Well Founded Fear State Persecution Dual Citizenship Credibility +1 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX]

Principal Claimant

[XXX]

Co Claimant (spouse)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (convention Refugee) / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is a Convention refugee under IRPA s.96
  2. 2 Whether the husband, as a dual citizen, has established a well-founded fear in both Nicaragua and Guatemala
  3. 3 Whether state protection in Nicaragua is available or effective

Ratio Decidendi

The principal claimant is a Convention refugee because her participation in protests, corroborated threats, summonses and medical evidence establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Nicaragua; the husband’s claim is rejected because he produced no evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala, and a dual citizen must show risk in each country of citizenship.

Court Disposition

Principal claimant found to be a Convention refugee under IRPA s.96; husband (dual citizen) not a Convention refugee and not a person in need of protection with respect to Guatemala.

Orders

  • Principal claimant's refugee claim is allowed (Convention refugee status granted).
  • Co-claimant (husband) claim dismissed for lack of evidence of risk in Guatemala.