TA6-01006

TA6-01006

The claimants' allegations were not credible due to omissions, inconsistencies and delay, and even if believed, adequate state protection exists in South Korea against loan‑shark criminality; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TA6-01006
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXXXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (female): XXXXX XXXX; Claimant (son, Minor): XXXXXX XXXXXX; Claimant (daughter, Minor): XXXXXXXXXX; Refugee Protection Officer: J. Cutler; Designated Representative: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Minister's Counsel: Minister's Counsel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing (refusal)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Risk to Life, Cruel and Unusual Treatment, Credibility, Omissions and Inconsistencies, Delay, Organized Crime, Debt Enforcement
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Convention Refugee Definition Particular Social Group State Protection Risk to Life Cruel and Unusual Treatment Credibility +4 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXXX XXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXXXX XXXXXX

Claimant (son, Minor)

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (daughter, Minor)

J. Cutler

Refugee Protection Officer

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Designated Representative

Minister's Counsel

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are Convention refugees linked to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are persons in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) of IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the fear of criminality constitutes persecution or membership in a particular social group

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' allegations were not credible due to omissions, inconsistencies and delay, and even if believed, adequate state protection exists in South Korea against loan‑shark criminality; therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees and not persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Refugee Protection Division decision dated September 5, 2006: claims refused