TB3-02240

TB3-02240

The panel found on the balance of probabilities that the assault and extortion were criminally motivated (economic extortion) rather than persecution for a Convention ground, that the risk was generalized and thus excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii), that the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection, and that a viable internal flight alternative (Cali or Cartagena) existed; accordingly the claims failed under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
TB3-02240
Parties
Claimant (male): XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Claimant (female): XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Determination, Person in Need of Protection (s.97), Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Extortion/organized Crime
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Convention Refugee Determination Person in Need of Protection (s.97) Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (male)

XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant (female)

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of the Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants established nexus to a Convention ground for refugee protection (s.96)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants face a personalized risk amounting to need for protection under s.97 or a generalized risk
  3. 3 Whether adequate state protection is available in Colombia

Ratio Decidendi

The panel found on the balance of probabilities that the assault and extortion were criminally motivated (economic extortion) rather than persecution for a Convention ground, that the risk was generalized and thus excluded by s.97(1)(b)(ii), that the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of adequate state protection, and that a viable internal flight alternative (Cali or Cartagena) existed; accordingly the claims failed under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under ss.96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Claims rejected