MB0-01424

MB0-01424

The panel rejected the claims because the evidence established at most a generalized risk of criminality exacerbated by the earthquake, not persecution on a Convention ground; the female claimant's pre-earthquake conduct and delay undermined her claimed subjective fear, and reasonable internal relocation (Jérémie or Cap Haïtien) with male accompaniment and state protection options meant she did not face a serious possibility of gender-based persecution; consequently no Convention refugee or subsection 97(1) protection was established.

Citation
MB0-01424
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; Claimant (us Citizen): XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (convention Refugee/person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
The claims for refugee protection are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Gender Related Persecution, Generalized Risk of Crime, Internal Relocation/state Protection, Nexus to Convention Grounds, Delay in Leaving Country, Humanitarian and Compassionate Relief, Country Conditions Haiti
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Gender Related Persecution Generalized Risk of Crime Internal Relocation/state Protection Nexus to Convention Grounds +3 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant (us Citizen)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (convention Refugee/person in Need of Protection) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether female claimant faces gender-related persecution amounting to a serious possibility of harm

Ratio Decidendi

The panel rejected the claims because the evidence established at most a generalized risk of criminality exacerbated by the earthquake, not persecution on a Convention ground; the female claimant's pre-earthquake conduct and delay undermined her claimed subjective fear, and reasonable internal relocation (Jérémie or Cap Haïtien) with male accompaniment and state protection options meant she did not face a serious possibility of gender-based persecution; consequently no Convention refugee or subsection 97(1) protection was established.

Court Disposition

The claims for refugee protection are rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Claims for refugee protection by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX rejected
  • Claim for refugee protection by child XXXXXXXXXXXXX (US citizen) rejected