2020 RLLR 14

2020 RLLR 14

The panel accepted the principal claimant as a member of the particular social group of women who are victims of gender violence, found the Guatemalan state unwilling and unable to provide operational protection against Mara 18 (and that gangs can locate the claimants anywhere in Guatemala), concluded no viable internal flight alternative exists, and therefore held the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution and are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA.

Citation
2020 RLLR 14
Parties
Principal Claimant: [XXX]; Associated Claimant: [XXX]
Court
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Labour Relations
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits by Refugee Protection Division
Outcome
Claims accepted; claimants found to be Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Gender Based Persecution, Particular Social Group, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Human Rights Law Gender Based Persecution Particular Social Group State Protection Internal Flight Alternative Credibility

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[XXX]

Principal Claimant

[XXX]

Associated Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim / Decision on Merits by Refugee Protection Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether the associated claimant has nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are credible

Ratio Decidendi

The panel accepted the principal claimant as a member of the particular social group of women who are victims of gender violence, found the Guatemalan state unwilling and unable to provide operational protection against Mara 18 (and that gangs can locate the claimants anywhere in Guatemala), concluded no viable internal flight alternative exists, and therefore held the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution and are Convention refugees under s.96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims accepted; claimants found to be Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claimants declared Convention refugees under s.96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and their claims accepted.
  • Claims were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the RPD Rules.