TA9-19655

TA9-19655

The claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground because their fear derived from generalized criminality and personal victimization rather than persecution for a Convention reason; the disability-based claim was barred by s.97(1)(b)(iv) and lacked corroborative medical evidence; material omissions in the PIF and prior acquisition of passports/visas undermined subjective fear; therefore they did not meet the requirements of sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA and protection was denied.

Citation
TA9-19655
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XX; Spouse / Designated Representative: XX XXXX XXXXXXXX; Son, Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX; Daughter, Minor Claimant: X XXXX X XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (merits Determination)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA
Legal Topics
Nexus to Convention Grounds, State Protection and Burden of Proof, Generalized Risk Under S.97(1)(b), Disability and Medical Care Exemption S.97(1)(b)(iv), Credibility and Corroboration Requirements
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Nexus to Convention Grounds State Protection and Burden of Proof Generalized Risk Under S.97(1)(b) Disability and Medical Care Exemption S.97(1)(b)(iv) Credibility and Corroboration Requirements

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XX

Principal Claimant

XX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Spouse / Designated Representative

XXXX XXXX XXXXXXX

Son, Minor Claimant

X XXXX X XXXX XXXX

Daughter, Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under IRPA / Hearing and Decision (merits Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants established nexus to a Convention ground
  2. 2 Whether state protection was unavailable or ineffective and burden of proof on claimants
  3. 3 Whether the risk alleged is individualized or a generalized risk under s.97(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish nexus to a Convention ground because their fear derived from generalized criminality and personal victimization rather than persecution for a Convention reason; the disability-based claim was barred by s.97(1)(b)(iv) and lacked corroborative medical evidence; material omissions in the PIF and prior acquisition of passports/visas undermined subjective fear; therefore they did not meet the requirements of sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA and protection was denied.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97 of the IRPA

Orders

  • Claims dismissed; protection and refugee status refused