MB0-04877

MB0-04877

The panel concluded that the claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that she faces a real risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment, or torture if returned; past abuse was remote, alleged abusers do not pose a current threat, state and NGO support exists in Saint Vincent, and s.108(4) does not apply, therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Citation
MB0-04877
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant's Counsel: Me Joseph W. Allen; Designated Representative: Robert Naylor; Decision Maker/panel: Anna Brychcy; Tribunal Officer: Myra Shuster
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Definition, Person in Need of Protection, State Protection, Credibility and Evidentiary Assessment, Compelling Reasons (s.108(4) Irpa)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Gender Based Violence Administrative Law Convention Refugee Definition Person in Need of Protection State Protection Credibility and Evidentiary Assessment +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Me Joseph W. Allen

Claimant's Counsel

Robert Naylor

Designated Representative

Anna Brychcy

Decision Maker/panel

Myra Shuster

Tribunal Officer

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant qualifies as a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant established compelling reasons under s.108(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded that the claimant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that she faces a real risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual treatment, or torture if returned; past abuse was remote, alleged abusers do not pose a current threat, state and NGO support exists in Saint Vincent, and s.108(4) does not apply, therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA nor a person in need of protection under section 97(1) IRPA.