TA6-14381

TA6-14381

The panel concluded the claimants faced a generalized risk from mara gang extortion rather than a risk individualized on a Convention ground, thereby excluding them under s.97(1)(b); alternatively, even if risk were individualized, the claimants failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that adequate state protection in Guatemala was unavailable, so on the balance of probabilities they would not face risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment if returned.

Citation
TA6-14381
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant (brother): XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
Legal Topics
Generalized Risk, State Protection, Exclusion Under S.97(1)(b), Convention Nexus, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Law Criminality/extortion Administrative Law Generalized Risk State Protection Exclusion Under S.97(1)(b) Convention Nexus Burden of Proof

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant (brother)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Decision Following Hearing (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants faced a risk personal to them or a generalized risk
  2. 2 Whether claimants established nexus to a Convention ground
  3. 3 Whether effective state protection was available in Guatemala

Ratio Decidendi

The panel concluded the claimants faced a generalized risk from mara gang extortion rather than a risk individualized on a Convention ground, thereby excluding them under s.97(1)(b); alternatively, even if risk were individualized, the claimants failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that adequate state protection in Guatemala was unavailable, so on the balance of probabilities they would not face risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment if returned.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection

Orders

  • Claims rejected