VA6-02626

VA6-02626

Although the principal claimant established a political-opinion nexus to his prior dismissal and some harassment, the evidence showed generalized political conflict but also viable internal flight alternatives (Caracas or Barcelona) where the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution; relocation would not be unduly harsh given their age, health, education and employment prospects; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1).

Citation
VA6-02626
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Political Opinion Nexus, Membership of Particular Social Group, Internal Flight Alternative, Country Conditions Assessment, Risk of Persecution
Source Language
English
Refugee Protection Employment Political Opposition Labour Standards Arrest Particular Social Group Family Internal Flight Alternative +6 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under ss.96 and 97(1) of IRPA
  2. 2 Whether harm feared is by reason of political opinion or membership of a particular social group
  3. 3 Whether a viable internal flight alternative exists within Venezuela

Ratio Decidendi

Although the principal claimant established a political-opinion nexus to his prior dismissal and some harassment, the evidence showed generalized political conflict but also viable internal flight alternatives (Caracas or Barcelona) where the claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution; relocation would not be unduly harsh given their age, health, education and employment prospects; therefore the claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 and 97(1).

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Refugee protection claims denied
  • No protection granted; removal to Venezuela not expected to expose claimants to risk