VA8-00384

VA8-00384

Although both claimants were found credible, the panel rejected both claims because neither established nexus to a Convention ground or a personalized risk: claimant A's sexual assault was assessed as a random act without identification or ongoing targeting and safe internal relocation was available; claimant B's extortion was found to be generalized criminality not persecution on account of a protected ground and did not meet s.97 threshold. The s.108 exception did not apply because there was no prior finding of refugee status and no change of circumstances.

Citation
VA8-00384
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Oral Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued
Outcome
Claims for refugee protection denied
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Person in Need of Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Gender Related Persecution, Extortion, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Credibility, Section 97 Risk, Section 108 Cessation/compelling Reasons
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Criminal Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Person in Need of Protection 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Hearing and Oral Decision Rendered; Written Reasons Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity and credibility of claimants
  2. 2 Whether applicants meet definition of Convention refugee
  3. 3 Whether applicants face personalized risk under section 97

Ratio Decidendi

Although both claimants were found credible, the panel rejected both claims because neither established nexus to a Convention ground or a personalized risk: claimant A's sexual assault was assessed as a random act without identification or ongoing targeting and safe internal relocation was available; claimant B's extortion was found to be generalized criminality not persecution on account of a protected ground and did not meet s.97 threshold. The s.108 exception did not apply because there was no prior finding of refugee status and no change of circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claims for refugee protection denied