MA7-06830

MA7-06830

The claimants failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground because the proposed particular social group was either overly broad or not recognized under Ward, and they failed to demonstrate state responsibility for torture or an individualized risk under s.97(1)(b)(ii) because the danger stems from generalized criminality; therefore their claims for refugee protection and for protection under s.97 fail.

Citation
MA7-06830
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX; Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA.
Legal Topics
Particular Social Group, Women and Children, Violence Against Women, Generalized Risk of Crime, State Protection, Torture (cat), Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Administrative Law Particular Social Group Women and Children Violence Against Women Generalized Risk of Crime +4 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection — Convention Refugee and Person in Need of Protection (irpa Ss.96,97) / Hearing and Decision (refugee Protection Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants are Convention refugees under s.96 of the IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimants are persons in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant membership in the proposed particular social group is a protected ground

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to establish a nexus to a Convention ground because the proposed particular social group was either overly broad or not recognized under Ward, and they failed to demonstrate state responsibility for torture or an individualized risk under s.97(1)(b)(ii) because the danger stems from generalized criminality; therefore their claims for refugee protection and for protection under s.97 fail.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and are not persons in need of protection under ss.97(1)(a) or (b) of the IRPA.